# Ends justifying the means



## Bullgrit (Nov 5, 2013)

What are some historical real world examples of a objectively good end justifying a terrible means? For "historical," we should probably look back to pre-WWII history.

Bullgrit


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 5, 2013)

I know of a case of a woman- Amber Cummings- who was abused by her husband.  Over time, he got into kiddie porn, Nazi memoribilia, and ultra-fascist websites.

She finally reached her breaking point and was contemplating suicide, weapon in hand.  But then wondered who would protect her daughter.  So she sent her kid next door to the neighbors, and after that, shot her husband and called the cops, confessing.

The police, during the sweep, found not only the kiddie porn and Nazi stuff, but a nearly completed dirty bomb (radiological) and a travel itinerary for his impending trip to Washington for Obama's initial presidential inauguration.

She was tried, convicted of murder, and given an 8 year suspended sentence.


----------



## Janx (Nov 5, 2013)

Bullgrit said:


> What are some historical real world examples of a objectively good end justifying a terrible means? For "historical," we should probably look back to pre-WWII history.
> 
> Bullgrit




Hmm.  Good question.  I reckon there could be some question on whether or not a given means was truly the best solution.

I'm at least convinced from my old "wipe out the drow" thread that there's some good logic on why genocide isn't a good tactic (separate from moral wrongness).

So I'm inclined to suspect that for any terrible means, a case can be made that it may also be a bad solution (bad as in not as effective as other solutions to solve the proposed goal).

As I can't think of anything, I'm pondering if there were as many causes driven by allegedly "good" motivations to then be saddled with a terrible means to solve it?

The Crusades seemed to be championed by folks clamoring for "good", though it's not clear that the actual people involved were driven by that (or that they were in effect fighting a true evil).

I would guess that some people's solutions to plague might have been terrible, effective and done with intent for the good of the people.  Seems like those time periods might render an example.


----------



## Janx (Nov 5, 2013)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I know of a case of a woman who was abused by her husband.  Over time, he got into kiddie porn, Nazi memoribilia, and ultra-faschist websites.
> 
> She finally reached her breaking point and was contemplating suicide, weapon in hand.  But then wondered who would protect her daughter.  So she sent her kid next door to the neighbors, and after that, shot her husband and called the cops, confessing.
> 
> ...




If her husband was into kiddie porn, then she had legal ammunition to just call the cops, and she would have achieved the same outcome without committing murder herself.

Though I'm a fan of civilians shooting bad guys early and often, I still generally feel that the situation needs to be one where the cops would be unable to help before resorting to shooting bad guys.  At least she basically got off.  I applaud the part of the justice system recognizing her situation.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 5, 2013)

One could argue also that allowing civilians and soldiers to die in order to keep the Nazis from realizing we had broken their codes until it was too late is another example.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 5, 2013)

Janx said:


> If her husband was into kiddie porn, then she had legal ammunition to just call the cops, and she would have achieved the same outcome without committing murder herself.
> 
> Though I'm a fan of civilians shooting bad guys early and often, I still generally feel that the situation needs to be one where the cops would be unable to help before resorting to shooting bad guys.  At least she basically got off.  I applaud the part of the justice system recognizing her situation.




Oh, I agree that calling the cops may have yielded similar results.  I am foggy, however, on the details of the case in the sense of timing.  As in, I don't know if the police would have arrived in time to prevent her husband's bombing plan.


----------



## Janx (Nov 5, 2013)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> One could argue also that allowing civilians and soldiers to die in order to keep the Nazis from realizing we had broken their codes until it was too late is another example.




good one, though I was trying to think of pre-WW2 stuff like BG asked.  The Nazis are chock full of ends justifying the means possibilities.

We got lots of rockety/medical knowledge from the Nazis, who did bad things to get that knowledge.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Nov 5, 2013)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Oh, I agree that calling the cops may have yielded similar results.  I am foggy, however, on the details of the case in the sense of timing.  As in, I don't know if the police would have arrived in time to prevent her husband's bombing plan.




And that's assuming she had knowledge of the kiddie porn in the first place.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Nov 5, 2013)

So... note pre-WWII, but how about the medical knowledge we got due to the nazi torture experiments on Jews?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 5, 2013)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> And that's assuming she had knowledge of the kiddie porn in the first place.




She did- it's what diverted her from suicide: she felt that if she killed herself, nobody would be protecting her daughter from her own daddy when he finally decided to emulate IRL what he was viewing online.


----------



## Bullgrit (Nov 5, 2013)

My pre-WWII restriction was to avoid current political issues into the discussion. 

Bullgrit


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 5, 2013)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> So... note pre-WWII, but how about the medical knowledge we got sure to the nazi torture experiments on Jews?




Janx ninja'd you.

I'll just add that the Nazis weren't alone in their dodgy medical ethics.  There were a lot of experiments conducted on the unwitting by Russian, American and other 1st world nations of the era.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Nov 5, 2013)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Janx ninja'd you.
> 
> I'll just add that the Nazis weren't alone in their dodgy medical ethics.  There were a lot of experiments conducted on the unwitting by Russian, American and other 1st world nations of the era.



Ago did the end justify the means?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 5, 2013)

You get some über-pragmatic decision making trees in the military.  Most navies- especially submariners in said navies- train a lot  about slamming bulkhead doors closed in the event of a major leak, even of it means sealing up someone to die.  Because if you don't, the entire ship may go down.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 5, 2013)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Ago did the end justify the means?



Hard to say.  I know that the data from those experiments gets debated rather hotly on both sides, but I don't know how much of it has ever been used in actuality.

One common attack is that the data had no actual scientific controls, so its useless.  But that may vary on a case by case basis.  Certainly, a lot of the Nazi stuff was pure torture, but was all of it?  I have not the first clue.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Nov 5, 2013)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> You get some über-pragmatic decision making trees in the military.  Most navies- especially submariners in said navies- train a lot  about slamming bulkhead doors closed in the event of a major leak, even of it means sealing up someone to die.  Because if you don't, the entire ship may go down.



So would you say it is a yes or a no?


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Nov 5, 2013)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Hard to say.  I know that the data from those experiments gets debated rather hotly on both sides, but I don't know how much of it has ever been used in actuality.
> 
> One common attack is that the data had no actual scientific controls, so its useless.  But that may vary on a case by case basis.  Certainly, a lot of the Nazi stuff was pure torture, but was all of it?  I have not the first clue.



From what I've heard, some of the plastic surgery procedure were found by the Nazis.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Nov 5, 2013)

Also, I'm on my phone, so if it seems like I'm quoting and relying to something you've already answered, its because I probably am, and I just haven't noticed you answered.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Nov 5, 2013)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> So... note pre-WWII, but how about the medical knowledge we got due to the nazi torture experiments on Jews?




Personally i still think the ends don't justify the means in this case, but because of the pre-WWII requirement of the discussion, we can go earlier. I am pretty sure in ptolemaic egypt, they gained a lot of medical knowledge by dissection criminals, often while alive.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 5, 2013)

Lifeboat Ethics is full of pragmatism.

Based on cases like the sinking of the _William Brown_*, the field is all about how to make ethical, life & death choices, especially when some of those choices might mean actively or effectively killing others.












* in brief, it was sunk by a mine, and one of the lifeboats that escaped was critically overburdened with survivors, short of supplies, and there was a storm approaching.  Some people had to be abandoned in order that all would not be lost.


----------



## Kramodlog (Nov 5, 2013)

Bullgrit said:


> What are some historical real world examples of a objectively good end justifying a terrible means? For "historical," we should probably look back to pre-WWII history.
> 
> Bullgrit



Seems you're saying that the end does justify the means. Maybe it doesn't. Two wrongs do not make a right goes the saying. 

Take slavery and the civil war in the US. Basically, it forced the end of slavery down the throat of the Souf. This created resentement toward the federal guberment that still exist today, lead to segregation for a long time and racism is still a problem. Sure, slaves were freed, but was it better for them and their descendants? Would avoiding the horror of war and just let the Souf evolve toward ending slavery have been better on the long term for blacks and the US has a nation even if a lot of people would have been kept as slaves for a while longer?


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Nov 5, 2013)

Just thought of one: 19th century English body snatching.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 5, 2013)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> So would you say it is a yes or a no?



With the navy stuff?  Yes.

If your ship is suffering a major breach, you may have to shut a bulkhead door in your best buddy's face- ensuring he drowns- in order to save the ship.  Its terrible, but it may be required of you...and its an assessment that may have to be done very quickly.


----------



## Kramodlog (Nov 5, 2013)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> She did- it's what diverted her from suicide: she felt that if she killed herself, nobody would be protecting her daughter from her own daddy when he finally decided to emulate IRL what he was viewing online.



Doesn't that mean she didn't need to kill him and could just have called the police?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 5, 2013)

> Sure, slaves were freed, but was it better for them and their descendants? Would avoiding the horror of war and just let the Souf evolve toward ending slavery have been better on the long term for blacks and the US has a nation even if a lot of people would have been kept as slaves for a while longer?




Yes, their descendants were better off, some even immediately post war.  Heck, historians can confirm that a few hundred slaves* improved their lot in life during the war _fighting for the Confederates._

As for long term...had the Confederates won or the war never happened, the world would be a much different- worse, IMHO- place.









* numbers greater than that have been claimed, but cannot be supported by the historical record.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 5, 2013)

goldomark said:


> Doesn't that mean she didn't need to kill him and could just have called the police?




Like I said, I don't know if the timing was such that the police would have arrived in time to prevent him leaving with his bomb.


----------



## Umbran (Nov 5, 2013)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Like I said, I don't know if the timing was such that the police would have arrived in time to prevent him leaving with his bomb.




If she dials 911 about a bomb, the cops would (depending on the location) be there in minutes, right?

Assuming basic competence of jury, lawyers, and judge....

If there's a credible argument that he was going to use the bomb imminently, I wouldn't expect a jury to convict her for murder.  While vigilante justice is frowned upon, don't most states recognize the need for citizens to use force to stop crimes?  Similarly, if there's credible argument that calling the cops would put herself or her child in danger - say, she *just discovered the bomb*, and had a confrontation with him - she probably has a self-defense defense.  As a long-term sufferer of abuse, she might have made it with a temporary insanity defense as well...

If there *wasn't* credible argument that he was going out imminently - if the police response time would have been good enough, if she could go next door to make that call - then a murder charge seems like the way it would go.


----------



## Janx (Nov 5, 2013)

goldomark said:


> Seems you're saying that the end does justify the means. Maybe it doesn't. Two wrongs do not make a right goes the saying.




That's the very point of BG's thread I believe.  To identify if there was a historical situation where a "terrible" means was implemented the the End justified.



goldomark said:


> Take slavery and the civil war in the US. Basically, it forced the end of slavery down the throat of the Souf. This created resentement toward the federal guberment that still exist today, lead to segregation for a long time and racism is still a problem. Sure, slaves were freed, but was it better for them and their descendants? Would avoiding the horror of war and just let the Souf evolve toward ending slavery have been better on the long term for blacks and the US has a nation even if a lot of people would have been kept as slaves for a while longer?




Just a question, as I'm not sure if it's a regional spelling thing or not.

When you write "the Souf" did you mean "the South"?
And is there a reason you write "guberment" instead of "government"


----------



## Janx (Nov 5, 2013)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> You get some über-pragmatic decision making trees in the military.  Most navies- especially submariners in said navies- train a lot  about slamming bulkhead doors closed in the event of a major leak, even of it means sealing up someone to die.  Because if you don't, the entire ship may go down.




In a military hierarchy, I think there's always the situation of making choices that will hurt somebody.

Much like playing chess and sacrificing a pawn.  In the real military, sacrificing a pawn means some of your soldiers die in order to accomplish the objective.

I reckon that's a means that's terrible for somebody on your side, justified by the end.


----------



## Kramodlog (Nov 5, 2013)

Janx said:


> That's the very point of BG's thread I believe.  To identify if there was a historical situation where a "terrible" means was implemented the the End justified.



I'm questioning whether the there are any case where the end justify the means. It seems to be taken for granted that it can be the case. 



> Just a question, as I'm not sure if it's a regional spelling thing or not.
> 
> When you write "the Souf" did you mean "the South"?
> And is there a reason you write "guberment" instead of "government"



Yes, cause it is funnerer that way.


----------



## Kramodlog (Nov 5, 2013)

Umbran said:


> If she dials 911 about a bomb, the cops would (depending on the location) be there in minutes, right?
> 
> Assuming basic competence of jury, lawyers, and judge....
> 
> ...



It doesn't seem like it was imminent.


----------



## Janx (Nov 5, 2013)

goldomark said:


> I'm questioning whether the there are any case where the end justify the means. It seems to be taken for granted that it can be the case.




I suspect that is the question that the OT attempts to broach.  Can somebody find an example that appears to have a terrible means that is justified by the end?

And then review if that example is true or not.  I believe I have disproved Danny's wife killing evil husband as there was likely a less terrible means to get the same result (thus proving your position correct).



goldomark said:


> Yes, cause it is funnerer that way.



The usage gives me a political vibe as it calls out deliberate intent to not say the traditional word.  I don't know the actual intent for its usage, or if it was a Quebec way of writing the word.


----------



## Kramodlog (Nov 5, 2013)

It is a direct intent to not use the traditional word, for that strange and mysterious tradition we have in Québec: terrible humor. Ask any OTTer. They'll make terrible jokes. Probably because I am a terrible person.


----------



## Umbran (Nov 5, 2013)

goldomark said:


> I'm questioning whether the there are any case where the end justify the means. It seems to be taken for granted that it can be the case.




I think it is taken for granted, because for each person there are some cases where the ends do justify the means.  If we can find a single case in which we agree that it happened, then we can get out of arguing whether it happens at all, and instead can argue over where the lines between justified and not lay.

I'll use myself as an example, in which I feel pretty secure.  Yesterday was, for me, "Donate a Day of Work" day.  I donated the wages of one full day of work to charity.  I chose the World Wildlife Fund.  I donated online - that used a small amount of electricity, which means a small amount of pollution.  I am pretty sure that my donation does more to help preserve the natural world than the pollution I incurred damages the world.  Thus, my ends I reached justified the means I used to reach them.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 5, 2013)

> If she dials 911 about a bomb, the cops would (depending on the location) be there in minutes, right?




One would hope.

Then again, There is also the problem that James- the husband- was a man of wealth in a small community.  He had apparently been involved in 16 reported violent crime allegations- as both victim and perpetrator- _none_ apparently resulting in jail time _for anyone_.  If the local constabularies aren't that interested in solving violent crimes among the local elites, what would police call #17 get?

In addition, we're talking about decisions made by someone who was minutes away from eating the gun she fed to someone else a few minutes later.  Probably a poster child for "battered women's syndrome."


----------



## Kramodlog (Nov 5, 2013)

Umbran said:


> I think it is taken for granted, because for each person there are some cases where the ends do justify the means.  If we can find a single case in which we agree that it happened, then we can get out of arguing whether it happens at all, and instead can argue over where the lines between justified and not lay.



What if someone doesn't believe the end justify the means in any case? I take this definition from an online dictionary: You can use bad or immoral methods as long as you accomplish something good by using them. 

Soem Tibetains set themselves on fire to protest the invasion of their country by China, to avoid hurting other people. It seems that to them the end doesn't justifythe means, so violence it turned inwards instead of that the one doing the slight.



> I'll use myself as an example, in which I feel pretty secure.  Yesterday was, for me, "Donate a Day of Work" day.  I donated the wages of one full day of work to charity.  I chose the World Wildlife Fund.  I donated online - that used a small amount of electricity, which means a small amount of pollution.  I am pretty sure that my donation does more to help preserve the natural world than the pollution I incurred damages the world.  Thus, my ends I reached justified the means I used to reach them.



This is not what BG intended when he wrote the OP.

And yes, it makes you a terrible person. /shakes head


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Nov 5, 2013)

She still decided to kill someone for crimes that don't earn the perpetrator capital punishment_ and _she did so in order to prevent crimes from happening* - not to address any that had.  She should have gone to prison.
__________

*And these crimes were not imminent.  She believed her daughter would be in imminent danger _only_ if she were to take her own life.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 5, 2013)

> It seems that to them the end doesn't justifythe means, so violence it turned inwards instead of that the one doing the slight.




OTOH, some would argue that suicide is itself an immoral act.  So their self-immolation would fith the presumed criteria of using bad/immoral act to achieve a good end.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 5, 2013)

Zombie_Babies said:


> She still decided to kill someone for crimes that don't earn the perpetrator capital punishment_ and _she did so in order to prevent crimes from happening* - not to address any that had.  She should have gone to prison.
> __________
> 
> *And these crimes were not imminent.  She believed her daughter would be in imminent danger _only_ if she were to take her own life.




The imminence of her daughter's danger was arguably pretty high, since she was getting ready to kill herself.  And defense of another is one of the categories of actions that lets someone skate on a charge of using deadly force.  In such a case, the defense of another need not be protecting someone from death, but merely from grave bodily harm...child rape would probably qualify.

The bombing is the one with the unsure timeline.

Still, as to your main point, she was convicted and given a suspended sentence.  That means that, in the eyes of the court, they did not believe she was a threat to others- see battered wives syndrome theories- but that if she did prove to be a threat by failing to comply during the term set, she would have faced immediate imprisonment.


----------



## Janx (Nov 5, 2013)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Yes, their descendants were better off, some even immediately post war.  Heck, historians can confirm that a few hundred slaves* improved their lot in life during the war _fighting for the Confederates._
> 
> As for long term...had the Confederates won or the war never happened, the world would be a much different- worse, IMHO- place.




I think for the US, transitioning out of slavery was always going to be difficult.  the US was one of the last powers to still have it.  France appears to have got off easy because they only did it offshore, they quit early, and were welcoming to blacks by then.

I'm not sure if the South would have given slavery up if the civil war didn't happen.  I would suspect abolitionists would have kept up their movements.  So if it wasn't made a state vs. state issue, there still would have been individuals making this a big cause on their own.

I can't imagine that going peacefully, and I can't imagine things being better for the slaves under an extended duration in the alternate history, as compared to the civil war.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Nov 5, 2013)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> The imminence of her daughter's danger was arguably pretty high, since she was getting ready to kill herself.  And defense of another is one of the categories of actions that lets someone skate on a charge of using deadly force.  In such a case, the defense of another need not be protecting someone from death, but merely from grave bodily harm...child rape would probably qualify.




The _only _reason the imminence was high was because of a decision _she _was going to make.  In other words, _she's _the one that considered putting her daughter in danger when she thought about killing herself.  That's created imminence and she created it.  And then when she decided not to kill herself the imminence went away and yet she acted as though it hadn't.  

I happen to know a thing or two about self-defense and defense of others and the threat still has to be imminent.  If the dood was pants down and throwin' the kid on a bed shooting him would have been accepted as defending a family member.  That was _not _the case.

Look, I ain't sayin' dood wasn't a monster and didn't have it coming.  All I'm saying is that she murdered him in cold blood and she arguably didn't prevent anything bad from happening.  All we have is a lot of 'could ofs' and 'maybes'.  That ain't justification.  Again, the only reason the threat was perceived as imminent was because she was thinking about offing herself.  Had she not considered that - and it's very important to remember she reconsidered - there would have been no imminent threat.  Something which I believe her thoughts on the matter prove nicely enough.



> The bombing is the one with the unsure timeline.




It's not alone.  



> Still, as to your main point, she was convicted and given a suspended sentence.  That means that, in the eyes of the court, they did not believe she was a threat to others- see battered wives syndrome theories- but that if she did prove to be a threat by failing to comply during the term set, she would have faced immediate imprisonment.




Yeah, she likely wasn't a threat to others.  That's cool.  She _did _murder someone in cold blood, though.  And she didn't prevent any imminent crime when she did it.  People get sent up for that all the time.  It's punishment, not prevention.


----------



## Janx (Nov 5, 2013)

Zombie_Babies said:


> She still decided to kill someone for crimes that don't earn the perpetrator capital punishment_ and _she did so in order to prevent crimes from happening* - not to address any that had.  She should have gone to prison.
> __________
> 
> *And these crimes were not imminent.  She believed her daughter would be in imminent danger _only_ if she were to take her own life.




Well, to be clear, she went to trial.  She was judged.  She was given a punishment that the court/jury thought befit her crime and circumstance.

So while I might have considered "8 years probation" to be getting off, she and her lawyer had to earn/prove that.  She was in trouble to be sure.

Now if the cops/DA hadn't file charges, that would have been getting off without any consequence.

As to whether her exact sentence was sufficiently harsh for killing an abuser, sex offender, terrorist?  I don't think punishing her further would have had any value.  Eight years probation is meant to be a test of proof that your not going to repeat offend.  I'm pretty sure she's not likely going to need to kill her abusive, sex offending, terrorist husband again (as in getting a new husband, not re-killing the same one).


----------



## Janx (Nov 5, 2013)

Zombie_Babies said:


> The _only _reason the imminence was high was because of a decision _she _was going to make.  In other words, _she's _the one that considered putting her daughter in danger when she thought about killing herself.  That's created imminence and she created it.  And then when she decided not to kill herself the imminence went away and yet she acted as though it hadn't.
> ..snip..
> 
> Yeah, she likely wasn't a threat to others.  That's cool.  She _did _murder someone in cold blood, though.  And she didn't prevent any imminent crime when she did it.  People get sent up for that all the time.  It's punishment, not prevention.




I'm not wholly sure of what cold blood means in legal terms.  As danny did point out, she might plea to temporary insanity.

A battered woman who is putting a gun barrel in her mouth and having second thoughts, then walking in and plugging her bastard husband is probably got a lot of excited, fear, anger and crazy going on at that moment.

Cold blooded murder to me implies waking up, brushing your teeth, making breakfast, shooting your husband, taking the kids to school, making the beds, tending the garden.  it tends to be calculated and with no remorse or concern about what just happened.

As it turns out in most cases, a sex offender's wife has little to do with preventing them from doing their deed.  Especially under an abusive husband who will get his way or beat her.  So the daughter was at the same risk of being molested whether the wife lived or not.

The only key variable is that the husband (to the wife's knowledge) hadn't done so yet, and the probability that he would eventually do so.  By being into Kiddie Porn, he is already a sex offender and if convicted would have had to register.  So the line was crossed for him about 50 websites ago.



Technically, she should have called that cops, as that should have resolved the situation.  I don't think she employed the best means for the end, but given the context, I don't have a huge problem with her solution either.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 5, 2013)

Nor did the judge and jury of her peers.  Or the FBI for that matter.

Perhaps they had just read up on Inuit near the Bering Strait.  They have a term- "kunlangeta" which refers to someone who has comitted any of a great number of offenses- including murder and theft. Kuniangeta were supposedly tolerated until they could be shoved into the icy waters to drown.

Perhaps they felt he was kunlangeta...


----------



## Bedrockgames (Nov 5, 2013)

Zombie_Babies said:


> She still decided to kill someone for crimes that don't earn the perpetrator capital punishment_ and _she did so in order to prevent crimes from happening* - not to address any that had.  She should have gone to prison.
> __________
> 
> *And these crimes were not imminent.  She believed her daughter would be in imminent danger _only_ if she were to take her own life.




I am not so sure. The guy was amassing bomb material, child porn, talked about a growing desire or young women and it looked like he might molest their daughter (and it sound like he had been abusing the mother for some time)....I think going to police was the better option but I imagine many mothers would act as she did to protect their children from such a person and have a hard time condemning her to prison for that act.


----------



## Umbran (Nov 5, 2013)

goldomark said:


> This is not what BG intended when he wrote the OP.




I'm establishing a point of logic.  I had an end that was (I think) a good one.  And a means that has something bad attached to it.  No, it isn't as severe a case as Bullgrit was originally raising, but that's intentional - I'm eliminating a goodly amount of emotional baggage associated with severe cases, and looking at a minor case.  This is to determine if we can find at least one case where a good end justified a means that had badness in it.

Once we establish that, we aren't looking at all-or-nothing.  We are looking at a sliding scale - a given end will justify some means, but not others, and we get to quibble over the moral value of a given end or means.



> What if someone doesn't believe the end justify the means in any case?




Well that's an extreme, and pretty hypothetical case, isn't it?  Absolutes like "never" are unforgiving, to say the least.  As a practical matter, such a person probably either needs to become amoral, not caring about any justification for anything, or accept that they'll live a life full of moral wrongs they commit and can never make up for. 



> Soem Tibetains set themselves on fire to protest the invasion of their country by China, to avoid hurting other people. It seems that to them the end doesn't justifythe means, so violence it turned inwards instead of that the one doing the slight.




That says that the end they desire does not justify killing other people.  But the end they desire *does* justify killing themselves.


----------



## Kramodlog (Nov 5, 2013)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> OTOH, some would argue that suicide is itself an immoral act.  So their self-immolation would fith the presumed criteria of using bad/immoral act to achieve a good end.



That is true. BG would need to clarify what he ment by "the end justify the means".


----------



## Kramodlog (Nov 5, 2013)

Umbran said:


> Well that's an extreme, and pretty hypothetical case, isn't it?  Absolutes like "never" are unforgiving, to say the least.  As a practical matter, such a person probably either needs to become amoral, not caring about any justification for anything, or accept that they'll live a life full of moral wrongs they commit and can never make up for.



A life full of moral wrongs? A person can consider itself very moral by not doing moral wrongs, like not hitting/killing someone, even if that person is attacking her. Sort of turning the other cheek. 



> That says that the end they desire does not justify killing other people.  But the end they desire *does* justify killing themselves.



Is it a terrible means like BG asked? It seems like it was something that hurt others people or the environment.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Nov 5, 2013)

Janx said:


> Well, to be clear, she went to trial.  She was judged.  She was given a punishment that the court/jury thought befit her crime and circumstance.
> 
> So while I might have considered "8 years probation" to be getting off, she and her lawyer had to earn/prove that.  She was in trouble to be sure.
> 
> ...




I didn't say she got off with no consequences, I'm saying she got off light.  She should have gone to prison.  Killing someone cuz you think they might do something bad isn't justification.  If it was there'd be a hell of a lot more dead people around.

When person A kills person B for whatever reason they aren't given 8 years probation.  Different circumstances are obviously important to consider.  Her circumstances did not justify the sentence she received.



Janx said:


> I'm not wholly sure of what cold blood means in legal terms.  As danny did point out, she might plea to temporary insanity.
> 
> A battered woman who is putting a gun barrel in her mouth and having second thoughts, then walking in and plugging her bastard husband is probably got a lot of excited, fear, anger and crazy going on at that moment.
> 
> ...




First, I don't care that this bastard is dead either - just want to make that clear.

Second, ok, 'cold blood' is probably overkill (tee hee) as a descriptor here.  That's fair.  

Nth, she had many other options available.  She chose, instead, to become judge jury and executioner when she had no immediate need to take his life.  She could have called the cops or _she could have walked out of the door_.  There were a lot more options than the last resort and yet that's where she decided to start solving her problem.  There was no imminent threat to her or her daughter.  None.  She acted as though there was.  She therefore acted improperly and should have been punished accordingly.



Bedrockgames said:


> I am not so sure. The guy was amassing bomb material, child porn, talked about a growing desire or young women and it looked like he might molest their daughter (and it sound like he had been abusing the mother for some time)....I think going to police was the better option but I imagine many mothers would act as she did to protect their children from such a person and have a hard time condemning her to prison for that act.




Again, 'might' has never been sufficient cause.  If it were I could try to get you angry enough to threaten me over the internet here, find you, shoot you and get off with probation because you 'might' actually hurt me.  That's not a world any of us wants to live in.  

And, again, it's not ok to go from zero to shoot him in the face when there are perfectly reasonable options in between.  She chose to kill him even though she could have done a few other things before it got that far.  Again, if he was in the process of harming her or her daughter or was just about to start her shooting him would have been fine.  She shot him _in his sleep_.  The only thing he was imminently threatening was the pillow he was about to drool on.  It didn't shoot him, she did.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Nov 5, 2013)

Zombie_Babies said:


> Again, 'might' has never been sufficient cause.  If it were I could try to get you angry enough to threaten me over the internet here, find you, shoot you and get off with probation because you 'might' actually hurt me.  That's not a world any of us wants to live in.
> 
> And, again, it's not ok to go from zero to shoot him in the face when there are perfectly reasonable options in between.  She chose to kill him even though she could have done a few other things before it got that far.  Again, if he was in the process of harming her or her daughter or was just about to start her shooting him would have been fine.  She shot him _in his sleep_.  The only thing he was imminently threatening was the pillow he was about to drool on.  It didn't shoot him, she did.



I am not saying she met the legal definition of self defense. Clearly by the law, she didn't. But I think given that her husband was abusive. Given his increasing interest in child pornography and young women. Given the wife's belief that he was going to harm their daughter. And given the fact that he was amassing bomb making material.....I'd say this rises well above 'might' and into the territory of 'probably will'. I agree with you, those other options would have been much better choices. However she didn't have the luxury of making that decision from our vantage point of relative safety. She was in the same household as this man, abused by him, and presumably in great fear. I think from her point of view, going to the police was just as risky because if they didn't arrest him right away, if he was released from jail, or if he somehow convinced them she was crazy, then there would be nothing she could do to protect the daughter. So while I would prefer she went about it another way, I cannot support sending her to jail for this. She acted as a lot of other mothers would in that situation.


----------



## athos (Nov 5, 2013)

Bullgrit said:


> What are some historical real world examples of a objectively good end justifying a terrible means? For "historical," we should probably look back to pre-WWII history.
> 
> Bullgrit




At the battle of the bulge in WW2, the americans had to machine gun to death the german prisoners so they could move on and continue fighting to overthrow the nazis and win the war.  This was clearly a violation of the geneva convention, but it had to be done, there weren't soldiers that could be spared to guard the prisoners.

Anytime there is war, there is going to be "incidents" that are terrible and awful, the fact that most civilians don't know or want to know about them is fine.  If the war is fought to prevent tyranny like WW2, then I think you can say those things are probably ok in the grand scheme of things.  I just feel bad for the line soldiers that have to do the "evil" and then live with what they did for the rest of their lives.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Nov 6, 2013)

Well, Carthage hasn't bothered anyone recently.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 6, 2013)

> She therefore acted improperly and should have been punished accordingly.




Well, the thing is, she was.  She was convicted of manslaughter, not 1st degree murder, and the suspended sentence is within the jurisdiction's guidelines.  Its _rare_, but not unheard of.  There's all kinds of room for sentencing in manslaughter cases.

Consider Donté Stallworth, the Cleveland Browns player who got a sentence of 30 days in jail & 2 years house arrest, 8 years probation and a lifetime ban on driving (reviewable and alterable in 5 years) & 1000 hours community service for intoxication manslaughter.  He got it not just throu status & wealth- it was his first offense of any kind, he was genuinely, immediately and publicly remorseful, and had a good overall reputation in the community.  Even the decedent's family was satisfied with the sentence.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 6, 2013)

Olgar Shiverstone said:


> Well, Carthage hasn't bothered anyone recently.




But what would things have been like had they won?

Besides, what have the Romans done for us?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExWfh6sGyso


----------



## tomBitonti (Nov 6, 2013)

Not sure if these examples really fit "the ends justify the means".

Soldiers, for example, have chosen to face harm, and will generally know that they might be asked to make a sacrifice to server a greater cause, perhaps without understanding what is happening.

Not agreeing one way or another, but there seems to be enough uncertainty in regards to the lady who killed her husband to make that a difficult example.

The example of use of WWII test results of the Nazi's is an after the fact decision.  To fit the definition (as it seems to me), we would have to ask if we should perform similar experiments _today_, and that the value to society would be worth the harm to innocents.

To say, there seems to be a particular character or sense built into the statement "the ends justify the means".  I find interesting the kind of examples which are chosen.  What about taking chemotherapy for cancer?  Or a lifelong regimen of somewhat unpleasant drugs as a treatment for HIV?  Or losing a limb to stave off cancer?

Thx!

TomB


----------



## Hand of Evil (Nov 6, 2013)

To me the answer is in the statement; do you have to justify the means?  If you do, I think there maybe something wrong going on.  

A real world example that I know of, should the results of Nazi human experimentation be used in medicine today.  This disgusts me, I can't see any justification to allow it.


----------



## Kramodlog (Nov 6, 2013)

Saving lives so that at least those people didn't die in vain?


----------



## Jhaelen (Nov 6, 2013)

Bullgrit said:


> What are some historical real world examples of a objectively good end justifying a terrible means? For "historical," we should probably look back to pre-WWII history.



Imho, there are none.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 6, 2013)

Jhaelen said:


> Imho, there are none.




What would you do in the lifeboat situation (post #20)?


----------



## Hand of Evil (Nov 6, 2013)

goldomark said:


> Saving lives so that at least those people didn't die in vain?



That is then saying it is right for the next guy to do it, that the cure can come at the price of a person's freedom's and rights and that some people are less valuable because of their race, religion or sexual preference.


----------



## delericho (Nov 6, 2013)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> What would you do in the lifeboat situation (post #20)?




While Spock said, "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few," it's also quite telling that when the time came, and the sacrifice had to be made, his chose to sacrifice _himself_.


----------



## tomBitonti (Nov 6, 2013)

Wouldn't the lifeboat example match the problem of vaccine distribution?

There are ongoing problems of too little vaccine being available.

I understand that distribution is prioritized: First to caregivers; Second to persons most vulnerable.  I'm not sure who comes next.

There is an example of the crew of the Endurance (1912), which was forced to split, with a part of the crew going ahead in a lifeboat, while the rest were forced to wait for the others to reach help.  That is a clear decision of prioritizing personnel.  (All were eventually saved, and the tale is very dramatic and a good read.)

Those don't _seem_ like "the ends justifies the means".  But, if not, what feature is missing?

Thx!

TomB


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 6, 2013)

delericho said:


> While Spock said, "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few," it's also quite telling that when the time came, and the sacrifice had to be made, his chose to sacrifice _himself_.




In that case, it really wasn't an option.  First of all, its unrealistic to expect 10 or so people out of 20+ to "do the right thing".

Second, as a sailor in the lifeboat, it would be your duty to save the others.  The lifeboat in question contained 3 ships crew: the mortally wounded ship's captain, someone from engineering, and the first mate.  The captain died, and was tossed, leaving the first mate as the only person who knew their position and how to navigate.  Nobody else aboard had any boating expertise of note.

So, not only could he not abdicate his responsibility to save lives, he further could not self-sacrifice, since either decision would have caused more fatalities than deciding to abandon some of the wreck's initial survivors.


----------



## delericho (Nov 6, 2013)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> In that case, it really wasn't an option.  First of all, its unrealistic to expect 10 or so people out of 20+ to "do the right thing".
> 
> Second, as a sailor in the lifeboat, it would be your duty to save the others.  The lifeboat in question contained 3 ships crew: the dying ship's captain, someone from engineering, and the first mate.  The captain died, and was tossed, leaving the first mate as the only person who knew their position and how to navigate.  Nobody else aboard had any boating expertise of note.
> 
> So, not only could he not abdicate his responsibility to save lives, he further could not self-sacrifice, since either decision would have caused more fatalities than deciding to abandon some of the wreck's initial survivors.




My honest response to that is that first you assign spaces to anyone who has essential skills (e.g. the navigator), and then the rest draw lots, or similar.

However, I also draw the distinction between something being the _necessary_ thing to do and it being the _right_ thing to do - and this falls into the latter category. "The best of a bad set of choices" isn't the same as "a good choice".

Edit: oh, the other thing... when envisaging my response to the scenario the first time out, I wasn't casting myself as the first officer (or captain). So I didn't assume responsibility for deciding for others what would be done. Having said that, though, I reject the notion that in that scenario it would be for the captain or first officer to make the choices - once we've reached that point, things necessarily get a lot more... anarchic.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 6, 2013)

I wasnt assuming you put yourself in the position of command.  That's why i pointed out that it is unrealistic to expect half of a group of strangers to "do the right thing".

You're kinda contradicting yourself- on the one hand, you said that you would assign spots for those with essential skills- here, only the First Mate- then put everyone else in a survival lottery.  But you "reject the notion that in that scenario it would be for the captain or first officer to make the choices".

Well who decides who has "essential skills"?  Once someone has decided some people don't have to participate in the lottery, they're already making life & death decisions about other people.  They might as well continue to do the job to its logical conclusion.

And as for the authority in general...well, that's part of the job description of being a ship's crewman in a lifeboat.  And even of it were not, don't you think that the group as a whole would look to such a person for decision making because of their experience and skill set?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 6, 2013)

Apologies, all- due to my faulty memory, I've been presenting the fictionalized version of the William Brown wreck as fact.

The actual facts are no better.  If anything, they're worse:

The captain, second mate, 7 sailors and one lucky passenger appropriated for themselves the better of the only two lifeboats. This was known as a jolly boat, having a sail and a fairly deep draft. The other craft, a long boat, which could be propelled only by oars, was left for the remainder of the crew and as many of the passengers as could fit into her; this number came to some 9 of the former and 33 of the latter.

About half of the passengers on the ship were left behind, and they stood on the deck, "shrieking and calling on the captain to take them off his boat." At least 14, some say 16, persons saved to the ship's longboat were thrown overboard 24 hours later by sailors acting upon their superior's orders because of the storm.  The First Mate was convicted of manslaughter a year later.


----------



## tomBitonti (Nov 6, 2013)

Interesting history lesson.

But, it doesn't seem like an "does the ends justify the means" type situation.

The basic question was whether the removal of some persons from the lifeboat necessary.  A secondary question is which persons to remove.

Some persons on the lifeboat might choose to reduce their risk by tossing others.  That's simple ruthlessness.  The same, if one person with a gun got to decide to keep his friends, and to push the few folks he disliked overboard.

This is a simple (if agonizing) prioritization / value judgement problem.

I'd say a similar case is for a woman who has one of the breast cancer genes.  Some chose mastectomies, some don't.  (My apologies for the brusque discussion on a sensitive and serious subject.)

The net of all of this, to me, is to find "does the ends justify the means" to be somewhat trite.  When cast to specific circumstances, the details seem to override any general moralization.

Thx!

TomB


----------



## Kramodlog (Nov 6, 2013)

Hand of Evil said:


> That is then saying it is right for the next guy to do it, that the cure can come at the price of a person's freedom's and rights and that some people are less valuable because of their race, religion or sexual preference.



No, it doesn't mean it is legitimate to do it again. It is just not pretending it didn't happen.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 6, 2013)

tomBitonti said:


> Interesting history lesson.
> 
> But, it doesn't seem like an "does the ends justify the means" type situation.
> 
> ...




The ultimate & overwhelming issue in the fictionalized and actual case was that the boat in question was overloaded to the point that it could not deliver to safety all of its passengers.  In neither case did the lifeboat have enough water and food stood aboard to stave off death from exposure & thirst, and a storm threatened the seaworthiness of each vessel in question.

In the fictionalized account, the First Mate acted before the storm hit.  In the the actual case, at the time people were being ejected, the overloaded lifeboat was taking on water and near sinking or overturning.  In both, the only things aboard that could be jettisoned were food, water, and people.  Had the vessel capsized, all food and fresh water would have been lost.

So the answer to the first question is yes- removal of some was the only way to prevent the loss of all.

As to the second, well...I find it enlightening that the RW First Mate was convicted of manslaughter (again, not murder) not because he killed or ordered to be killed persons under his aegis, but rather, he was faulted for improper method of selectiing them and failure to act decisively before the situation reached crisis.  That is, he should have been tossing people before the boat was so close to sinking- had he acted decisively beforehand (as the movie character did), he would not have been under as much time pressure, and could have chosen whom to sacrifice with more wisdom.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Nov 6, 2013)

Bedrockgames said:


> I am not saying she met the legal definition of self defense. Clearly by the law, she didn't. But I think given that her husband was abusive. Given his increasing interest in child pornography and young women. Given the wife's belief that he was going to harm their daughter. And given the fact that he was amassing bomb making material.....I'd say this rises well above 'might' and into the territory of 'probably will'. I agree with you, those other options would have been much better choices. However she didn't have the luxury of making that decision from our vantage point of relative safety. She was in the same household as this man, abused by him, and presumably in great fear. I think from her point of view, going to the police was just as risky because if they didn't arrest him right away, if he was released from jail, or if he somehow convinced them she was crazy, then there would be nothing she could do to protect the daughter. So while I would prefer she went about it another way, I cannot support sending her to jail for this. She acted as a lot of other mothers would in that situation.




I have one issue with this: At the time of the murder her husband was asleep.  She wasn't locked in the home and she had access to her child.  All she had to do was leave.  She didn't.  She chose to murder a man in his sleep instead.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Nov 6, 2013)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Well, the thing is, she was.  She was convicted of manslaughter, not 1st degree murder, and the suspended sentence is within the jurisdiction's guidelines.  Its _rare_, but not unheard of.  There's all kinds of room for sentencing in manslaughter cases.
> 
> Consider Donté Stallworth, the Cleveland Browns player who got a sentence of 30 days in jail & 2 years house arrest, 8 years probation and a lifetime ban on driving (reviewable and alterable in 5 years) & 1000 hours community service for intoxication manslaughter.  He got it not just throu status & wealth- it was his first offense of any kind, he was genuinely, immediately and publicly remorseful, and had a good overall reputation in the community.  Even the decedent's family was satisfied with the sentence.




She was punished, yes, but not what I'd call according to her deed.  She shot a man in the head when she could have simply left the home with her child and looked for help.

The Stallworth thing is a little different, too.  He was negligent and he had an accident.  She was deliberate and meant to kill her husband.  That looks like two totally different scenarios to me.  Also, Mr Stallworth happened to pay the family of the deceased a large sum of money.  He did so because I believe - as you do - that he was genuinely sorry.  I don't think it hurt him when it came to the courts, though.


----------



## Janx (Nov 6, 2013)

Zombie_Babies said:


> She was punished, yes, but not what I'd call according to her deed.  She shot a man in the head when she could have simply left the home with her child and looked for help.




I think the woman with the bad husband is one of those "agree to disagree" examples.  The conversation has looped.

I think it is agreeable that this example isn't sufficient proof of a terrible means with a justified end, given there is debate over it.


So, are there any other candidate examples?

I think Umbran's test was also a good idea, to prove that some Means do justify the End.

Given that a statement of "the Ends Never Justify the Means" would next to useless logically or philosophically in that any and all Means would not be justified to any and all Ends.  That would pretty much mean that doing or not doing anything would not be suitable for any objective.


Therefore, identifying what bounds a Mean to justify an End might be helpful.  BG was asking for Terrible Means, but just how Terrible does it have to be?


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Nov 6, 2013)

Janx said:


> I think the woman with the bad husband is one of those "agree to disagree" examples.  The conversation has looped.
> 
> I think it is agreeable that this example isn't sufficient proof of a terrible means with a justified end, given there is debate over it.




Why you incredibly reasonable jerk!  

Yeah, I'm with ya.  We're actually all pretty close on this one for the most part, too.  And, again, I do agree the world is a better place for what she did ... even though it was a murder.  



> So, are there any other candidate examples?




I mentioned one but it was during the more heated portion of the earlier discussion.  I brought up the 19th century English body snatchers.  Stealing corpses and desecrating them is typically seen as something pretty awful.  Thing is, our anatomical knowledge and even surgery techniques likely would have taken much longer to develop had they not done it.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Nov 6, 2013)

Zombie_Babies said:


> I have one issue with this: At the time of the murder her husband was asleep.  She wasn't locked in the home and she had access to her child.  All she had to do was leave.  She didn't.  She chose to murder a man in his sleep instead.




Because that was the safest time to kill him. What should she do, wait for him to be on his feet and alert so it can be a fair fight? Had she attacked him while he was awake he might have overpowered her, killed her and continued to pose a threat to the daughter. I am not arguing that her actions were ideal, just that they seem justified to me given what she believed he was going to do. I think a woman, in that situation, trying to protect her daughter, shouldn't spend time in jail. In a perfect world she would have felt safe enough to go to the authorities. But i can definitely see how she didn't want to risk that. If the priority was protecting her child from this man, who it seems did pose a very real threat, then I can't really fault her for acting how i expect my own mother, my sisters, or wife would act in that position.

this man was seriously disturbed. Leaving would have ony given temporary safety to her and her daughter. He could even use that to accuse the wife of abducting he daughter, possibly gained custody. Even more frightening, he could have tracked her down and murdered her. I just dont think this scenario is as simple or easy as you are painting it.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Nov 6, 2013)

Bedrockgames said:


> Because that was the safest time to kill him. What should she do, wait for him to be on his feet and alert so it can be a fair fight? Had she attacked him while he was awake he might have overpowered her, killed her and continued to pose a threat to the daughter. I am not arguing that her actions were ideal, just that they seem justified to me given what she believed he was going to do. I think a woman, in that situation, trying to protect her daughter, shouldn't spend time in jail. In a perfect world she would have felt safe enough to go to the authorities. But i can definitely see how she didn't want to risk that. If the priority was protecting her child from this man, who it seems did pose a very real threat, then I can't really fault her for acting how i expect my own mother, my sisters, or wife would act in that position.
> 
> this man was seriously disturbed. Leaving would have ony given temporary safety to her and her daughter. He could even use that to accuse the wife of abducting he daughter, possibly gained custody. Even more frightening, he could have tracked her down and murdered her. I just dont think this scenario is as simple or easy as you are painting it.




If it was the safest time to attack him it was also the safest time to leave.  

And yeah, if she left he could have said she kidnapped the kid ... and then she could have told her story ... and then the cops could have gotten a warrant ... and then they could have found kiddie porn ... and then nuclear material ... I think you see where this would go.  Her first response was what should have been her last resort.  That's the problem.  She skipped steps 1-9 and went straight to 'cap dat foo'.


----------



## Kramodlog (Nov 6, 2013)

Bedrockgames said:


> Because that was the safest time to kill him. What should she do, wait for him to be on his feet and alert so it can be a fair fight? Had she attacked him while he was awake he might have overpowered her, killed her and continued to pose a threat to the daughter. I am not arguing that her actions were ideal, just that they seem justified to me given what she believed he was going to do. I think a woman, in that situation, trying to protect her daughter, shouldn't spend time in jail. In a perfect world she would have felt safe enough to go to the authorities. But i can definitely see how she didn't want to risk that. If the priority was protecting her child from this man, who it seems did pose a very real threat, then I can't really fault her for acting how i expect my own mother, my sisters, or wife would act in that position.
> 
> this man was seriously disturbed. Leaving would have ony given temporary safety to her and her daughter. He could even use that to accuse the wife of abducting he daughter, possibly gained custody. Even more frightening, he could have tracked her down and murdered her. I just dont think this scenario is as simple or easy as you are painting it.



Just invoking wanting to protect someone doesn't mean you get to be above the law. She really should have called the police. Saying you do not trust cops or they make mistakes doesn't mean you get to take the law into your own hands.

If she can claimed battered wife symdrome, and I think she did, that could get her off, but the danger was not imminent and she did have other options (call the cops).


----------



## Bedrockgames (Nov 6, 2013)

Zombie_Babies said:


> If it was the safest time to attack him it was also the safest time to leave.
> 
> And yeah, if she left he could have said she kidnapped the kid ... and then she could have told her story ... and then the cops could have gotten a warrant ... and then they could have found kiddie porn ... and then nuclear material ... I think you see where this would go.  Her first response was what should have been her last resort.  That's the problem.  She skipped steps 1-9 and went straight to 'cap dat foo'.




Again, I think the leaving introduced a number of complications and we are dealing with a woman who had been abused by the man. So I just don't think she had the luxury of thinking through this from our safe vantage point. Also, you are assuming the best case scenario. If she left and went to the cops, it was not a certainty the police would get a warrant and not a certainty that they would find the child porn (he could have gotten rid of it for example----same with the bomb material). The bottom line is, if she wanted to ensure the safety of her daughter from this man, the most effective thing to do was kill him in his sleep. And that is what she did. Now she could have gone to cops, she could have tried to leave, and I think those are preferable options, but I understand why she might not have, and I think it is unjust to imprison her when she was trying to stop an abusive man who expressed interest in pedophilia and was amassing bomb material. The problem with your calculation is had she made this her last resort, she might not have had the chance to employ it. He could have killed her or molested the daughter in the interim.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Nov 6, 2013)

goldomark said:


> Just invoking wanting to protect someone doesn't mean you get to be above the law. She really should have called the police. Saying you do not trust cops or they make mistakes doesn't mean you get to take the law into your own hands.
> 
> If she can claimed battered wife symdrome, and I think she did, that could get her off, but the danger was not imminent and she did have other options (call the cops).



Earlier I said this didn't meet the legal definition of self defense, which is why she was convicted. But judges and prosecutors do have discretion. In this case, I think killing him to protect her daughter, was an understandable action and she shouldn't serve time for it. I don't think it was the best way to handle it, but I do think ultimately she was trying to protect her daughter from a man who would have molested her and who probably was going to go on to commit an act of terrorism. When you add that she was also abused by the husband, I think putting her in jail would have been a miscarriage of justice. Should she have gone to the police first? Probably, but I can understand why she didn't, and I think the circumstances she was living in, probably make anyone think twice about taking their chances going through legal channels.


----------



## Kramodlog (Nov 6, 2013)

Bedrockgames said:


> Earlier I said this didn't meet the legal definition of self defense, which is why she was convicted. But judges and prosecutors do have discretion. In this case, I think killing him to protect her daughter, was an understandable action and she shouldn't serve time for it. I don't think it was the best way to handle it, but I do think ultimately she was trying to protect her daughter from a man who would have molested her and who probably was going to go on to commit an act of terrorism. When you add that she was also abused by the husband, I think putting her in jail would have been a miscarriage of justice. Should she have gone to the police first? Probably, but I can understand why she didn't, and I think the circumstances she was living in, probably make anyone think twice about taking their chances going through legal channels.



I disagree here. You put forth a standard that justify people taking the law into their own hands. It really should be a question of last resort, not the default solution after suicide.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Nov 6, 2013)

goldomark said:


> I disagree here. You put forth a standard that justify people taking the law into their own hands. It really should be a question of last resort, not the default solution after suicide.



Okay. It is your right to disagree, but my right to maintain my opinion. I think people have a right to protect themselves and their children. In this case, I believe that is what she was doing. I do not see this as vigilantism, I see it as taking steps to stop someone who posed a very real danger to the daughter. She wasn't trying to administer justice herself, she was trying to keep her daughter safe. And I think her actions are understandable and not deserving of time in jail. It was correct for her to be tried, but I think sending her to jail would not have been the best outcome here. Had she gone to the police, there was still the possibility he would have molested the daughter (either before the police had a chance to do anything, or if the police could find no reason to arrest him). This action entirely eliminated that possibility. The way I see it, she took that action knowing she might do time, because she thought it protected her daughter more than the alternatives. I do not want to send her to jail for that.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Nov 6, 2013)

goldomark said:


> It really should be a question of last resort, not the default solution after suicide.




The fact that she was about to commit suicide before shooting him, just shows me how broken this woman was by the experience, and increases my sense that these were extenuating circumstances. I even went and reviewed the news material on this case in the last hour and it has only strengthened my opinion she did the right thing. He not only had abused the wife for years, but he was trying to force her to lure young women to the house through chat rooms. So the danger even went beyond her own family and into the community. The judge made the right call here IMO.


----------



## Kramodlog (Nov 6, 2013)

Bedrockgames said:


> The fact that she was about to commit suicide before shooting him, just shows me how broken this woman was by the experience,



I agree with you here. 







> and increases my sense that these were extenuating circumstances.



This is where battered wife syndrome comes in.



> I even went and reviewed the news material on this case in the last hour and it has only strengthened my opinion she did the right thing. He not only had abused the wife for years, but he was trying to force her to lure young women to the house through chat rooms. So the danger even went beyond her own family and into the community. The judge made the right call here IMO.



I can't agree with you, sorry. People shouldn't take justice into their own hands.


----------



## Kramodlog (Nov 6, 2013)

Bedrockgames said:


> I think people have a right to protect themselves and their children.



So do I, we disagree on the standard for self-defense. She had other options.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Nov 6, 2013)

goldomark said:


> I agree with you here. This is where battered wife syndrome comes in.
> 
> I can't agree with you, sorry. People shouldn't take justice into their own hands.




Okay, you don't have to agree with me. I think it is understandable that she took matters into her own hands, and feel the judge's decision to suspend the eight year sentence was the correct one.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Nov 6, 2013)

goldomark said:


> So do I, we disagree on the standard for self-defense. She had other options.



No, I agree this didn't meet the legal definition of self defense in the US. Clearly she needed to be tried. But in our system of justice, you consider the specific circumstances of the case. In this one, I think she was honestly trying to protect her daughter within the context of a very difficult and abusive situation. That she didn't take these other options is quite understandable, so I would not want her to go to jail over killing the husband.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Nov 6, 2013)

But to bring this back to the issue of the ends justifying the means. I think people either believe in deontological ethics or they don't. If you believe things are always either right or wrong, black or white, then you won't ever find the ends can justify the means. While I feel the ends justify the means is rarely a good argument for doing something bad, I do think there are times when the ends can justify the means. A cop who kills a gunman on a shooting spree in a mall, is committing a bad act (murder) for a good reason (to save lives and stop the killing). In that case, the ends do justify the means. I think it is very difficult to say a given action is always bad no matter the circumstances. There are going to be times where outcomes and consequences shade the moral value an action.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Nov 6, 2013)

Bedrockgames said:


> Okay. It is your right to disagree, but my right to maintain my opinion. I think people have a right to protect themselves and their children. In this case, I believe that is what she was doing.



Normally I would agree with you, but the sequence of actions doesn't seem to support that, or at least not from the start. 
The woman knew her husband had child porn. From Danny's description, it is not known for how long she knew. Also, his interest in nazis was more than likely something that was not kept a secret from her. Most people would rather you know they are nazis than into children. In any case, she should have known. Also, the guy had been abusing her. For how long, we don't know. Still, it probably wasn't something new. Chances are the guy had been abusive, maybe not sexually, to his daughter. The woman, knowing all this, decided to kill herself. Maybe she thought it was the only way she could get away from her husband. Maybe she thought if she was dead, her husband couldn't hurt her. Whatever her reasons, she did not take her daughter's, or anyone else's, welfare into consideration. 

Yes, she changed her mind and decided to not kill herself, but instead kill the guy. so...


> *I do not see this as vigilantism*, I see it as taking steps to stop someone who posed a very real danger to the daughter. She wasn't trying to administer justice herself, she was trying to keep her daughter safe.



I don't think it was vigilantism, nor do I think it was her trying to protect her daughter. That may be what she said, but that isn't what her behavior before the killing indicates to me. It's quite possible that she killed him to get back at him for all the years of abuse. That he had child porn and could have started to, if he hadn't already, abuse his own daughter seems like a convenient excuse for the murder.



> And I think her actions are understandable and not deserving of time in jail. It was correct for her to be tried, but I think sending her to jail would not have been the best outcome here. Had she gone to the police, there was still the possibility he would have molested the daughter (either before the police had a chance to do anything, or if the police could find no reason to arrest him). This action entirely eliminated that possibility. The way I see it, she took that action knowing she might do time, because she thought it protected her daughter more than the alternatives. I do not want to send her to jail for that.



Her actions are understandable, but even understandable actions can be illegal.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Nov 6, 2013)

I never said her actions were legal, they were not. I stated she should have been tried and convicted. But agreed with the judge to suspend her sentence. She was evaluated by three different professionals and they all recommended she not serve time, so I am inclined to read the suicide thing as showing just how much this man has broken her, but also inclined to believe she changed her mind at the last minute because she was thinking about her daughter and what would happen to her. I won't argue that she made the best choices at each step of the way, but I have a hard time not empathizing with her situation. She isn't someone I'd want to put in jail.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Nov 6, 2013)

Where are you getting the information about the three professionals evaluating her? I haven't read every page I'm this thread. Was an article actually linked? As far as I remember, Danny just commented he heard about this case


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 6, 2013)

> Her actions are understandable, but even understandable actions can be illegal.




Which is why she was convicted.

The thng is, while battered woman's syndrome may or may not be a real thing, there is currently no consensus on it in the psychological or legal community as to its precise symptoms, and what it means for those who suffer it.

As a result, BWS defenses are rare and even more rarely successful- probably about on par with insanity defenses.  (Maybe about 1 in 100 defendants in violent crime cases are allowed to mount an insanity defense....and of those, maybe 1% are successful in gaining an acquittal or diminishing the sentence.)


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Nov 6, 2013)

Well, insanity is a legal term, not one used in psychology.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Nov 6, 2013)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Where are you getting the information about the three professionals evaluating her? I haven't read every page I'm this thread. Was an article actually linked? As far as I remember, Danny just commented he heard about this case





In this article: http://www.foxnews.com/story/2010/01/08/maine-woman-who-killed-husband-wont-go-to-prison/



			
				From the article said:
			
		

> Amber Cummings didn't address the court, but three mental health experts who evaluated her urged Hjelm not to send her to jail.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 6, 2013)

> Well, insanity is a legal term, not one used in psychology.





Right, but AFAIK, BWS isn't formally recognized in the DSM-4.

Unless/until it does get some kind of formal recognition, it's rarely going to be successful.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Nov 6, 2013)

Bedrockgames said:


> In this article: http://www.foxnews.com/story/2010/01/08/maine-woman-who-killed-husband-wont-go-to-prison/



That article just brings up so many more questions than it answers. Not having interviewed her myself, I question some of the findings the other psychologists found.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Nov 6, 2013)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Right, but AFAIK, BWS isn't formally recognized in the DSM-4.
> 
> Unless/until it does get some kind of formal recognition, it's rarely going to be successful.




We are up to the DSM-V, which had some significant changes. I haven't looked for BWS, but I may just looked it up later.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Nov 7, 2013)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> That article just brings up so many more questions than it answers. Not having interviewed her myself, I question some of the fundings the other psychologists found.




Well three is not an insubstantial number, and i doubt any of us will get a chance to interview her ourselves.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Nov 7, 2013)

Eh... it could have been three bad mental health practitioners. It could have been three who aren't knowledgeable in that area of work. Also, one should always question the experts hired by either side. The defense isn't going to put up the testimony of someone who disagrees with their side and says this lady should have been tossed in jail for years.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Nov 7, 2013)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Eh... it could have been three bad mental health practitioners. It could have been three who aren't knowledgeable in that you're of work. Also, one should always question the experts hired by either side. The defense isn't going to put up the testimony of someone who disagrees with their side and says this lady should have been tossed in jail for years.




Sure but the judge also seems to have agreed with them. If you want to delve deeper, by all means go for it and track down the trial info. Based on the news stories, I am pretty well convinced judge made the right call.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Nov 7, 2013)

You're entitled to your opinion. I still see a lot of things that are questionable. Also, I'm not sure that finding the actual psychological interviews is possible. That may be protected information. The trial information wouldn't be much help.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Nov 7, 2013)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> You're entitled to your opinion. I still see a lot of things that are questionable. Also, I'm not sure that finding the actual psychological interviews is possible. That may be protected information. The trial information wouldn't be much help.




Fair enough.

that was kind of my point, we can only make a judgment based on the available information and every news story i encountered had pretty much the same info as the fox article. If you  find more news stories that go into greater detail on the experts that would help us delve deeper, but until then, I think between them having thre experts and the judge basically agreeing with the experts in his sentencing is enough for me.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Nov 7, 2013)

There was an article a while back about how all the major, and most of the minor news outlets for their stories from one source. If you look at some articles on different websites, you'll notice they are the same exact article. Fox News may publish an article, and your can find the same article in The Blaze and Washington Post or Wall Street Journal. It's pretty sad that most of these news outlets just but their articles from one place. No one is doing any actual writing any more.


----------



## Robin Hoodlum (Nov 7, 2013)

You forgot to mention the Huffington and Puffington Post, Mother Jones, CNN, and MSNBC.
Just sayin'.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Nov 7, 2013)

Robin Hoodlum said:


> You forgot to mention the Huffington and Puffington Post, Mother Jones, CNN, and MSNBC.
> Just sayin'.



Of course. They all get the same articles as the other news networks.


----------



## Kramodlog (Nov 7, 2013)

Maybe there is just one news outlet. Have you thought about it?

And remember, always pay with credit cards, this way they can't track you.


----------



## EscherEnigma (Nov 7, 2013)

Historical examples?  Are we counting self-defense or soldiers defending their homes?  Or is that too pedestrian and not nearly grand enough?

Well, along the "grand" line of thinking, if I remember my Egyptian history correctly the reason their pantheon is so fracked up is that it's actually a melding of two (or more) pantheons.  Way way back in time what happened was that, to unify the Nile, whoever it was that had influence (can't remember) managed to smash the conflicting pantheons of the various tribes.  Now, I'd call that spiritual violence (manipulating religion for earthly gains?) and a pretty terrible means, but the end result (a unified Nile that would last hundreds of years) was a pretty shiny thing.

Now, if you like religious lines, then you have all sorts of wonderful examples... every sword-point conversion is a "ends justify the means" situation... provided the person holding the sword was _right_.  Then there's Christ himself, who (depending on your favored history) was either a revolutionary bringing revelations or a lie concocted by the Romans to try and reign in the Jews.  Either way, either he's saving some people by throwing the old followers to the wolves or it's all a lie to manipulate the masses.

Quick swerve to the East and we have the Black Ships forcing Japan to open their doors to the western world at cannon-point.  I don't think it's a tough argument to say it's pretty terrible to point a gun at someone's head in the pursuit of money, but the result, that Japan became a first-rate player in the world, is arguably for the betterment of everyone.  Of course, they did have that nasty civil war and fling with fascism along the way...  

Sticking to the East for a bit but swinging more northerly, we have Russia.  They're kind of Case A for doing terrible things in pursuit of supposedly noble intentions.  But let's focus on Catherine the Great for a second.  Depending on which scandalous versions you like, she basically usurped the throne, had the real king imprisoned, and then eventually had him offed out of spite.  But she was *such* a better monarch then he was.  Kinda morally questionable to have your hubby chained to a wall and stabbed, but the end result was actually pretty good.

For that matter, probably half of the interesting succession stories involve similar cases.  You could probably make a good argument about good ends/bad deeds just based on the monarchies of Europe.

Switching tacks, let's play "what-if"... what-if, when Columbus landed, the natives killed him and his crew, burned the ships to the ground, and hid all the evidence?  Think of how many of them would have been saved if Columbus's life had been cut so short.  Would Spain have sent another vessel?  Possibly... but quite possibly not.  After all, they all had a pretty good idea that it could be done, but it was still risky enough that Columbus's voyage was kind of a big deal.  If he had just fallen off the edge of the world the colonization of the Americas by Europe could have been pushed back by a century or more, and who knows what would have happened then?  For that matter, if the Indians had just been unquestionably violent with the Europeans from the start they could have saved their civilizations from destruction.  Would that have been a "good end" even if it meant slaughtering every pale-skinned person (bastard or saint) that landed on their shore?

Now, in any and all of what I've said, could a different choice had a "better" result?  Oh, quite possibly.  But the choosing between two unequal goods is a different question.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Nov 7, 2013)

Bedrockgames said:


> Again, I think the leaving introduced a number of complications and we are dealing with a woman who had been abused by the man. So I just don't think she had the luxury of thinking through this from our safe vantage point. Also, you are assuming the best case scenario. If she left and went to the cops, it was not a certainty the police would get a warrant and not a certainty that they would find the child porn (he could have gotten rid of it for example----same with the bomb material). The bottom line is, if she wanted to ensure the safety of her daughter from this man, the most effective thing to do was kill him in his sleep. And that is what she did. Now she could have gone to cops, she could have tried to leave, and I think those are preferable options, but I understand why she might not have, and I think it is unjust to imprison her when she was trying to stop an abusive man who expressed interest in pedophilia and was amassing bomb material. The problem with your calculation is had she made this her last resort, she might not have had the chance to employ it. He could have killed her or molested the daughter in the interim.




The bottom line is that she tried _nothing_ else.  She went directly to murder.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Nov 7, 2013)

Bedrockgames said:


> I never said her actions were legal, they were not. I stated she should have been tried and convicted. But agreed with the judge to suspend her sentence. *She was evaluated by three different professionals and they all recommended she not serve time,* so I am inclined to read the suicide thing as showing just how much this man has broken her, but also inclined to believe she changed her mind at the last minute because she was thinking about her daughter and what would happen to her. I won't argue that she made the best choices at each step of the way, but I have a hard time not empathizing with her situation. She isn't someone I'd want to put in jail.




Bold added.

I've seen this line of reasoning here a couple of times now and it's got me curious as I see it as rather dangerous.  The number of people supporting a position - be they experts or not - means nothing about the correctness of their belief.  If it did, all the Jews would be dead.  

Sorry for the diversion from the topic (it's an interesting one) but this really gets to me.  I've never seen 'well so and so says' used so often to bolster a position.  People can and do say anything they want to - especially when they're paid to do it.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Nov 7, 2013)

Zombie_Babies said:


> Bold added.
> 
> I've seen this line of reasoning here a couple of times now and it's got me curious as I see it as rather dangerous.  The number of people supporting a position - be they experts or not - means nothing about the correctness of their belief.  If it did, all the Jews would be dead.
> 
> Sorry for the diversion from the topic (it's an interesting one) but this really gets to me.  I've never seen 'well so and so says' used so often to bolster a position.  People can and do say anything they want to - especially when they're paid to do it.




The number is important because one factor being weighed is her mental state due to the abuse she suffered. If you have three experts recommending no jail time, then that is something to consider in your overall decision making. We dont know the details because the news article is so lean. These may have been experts brought in by the defense, or they may not have been, we do not know. But like i said, the judge seems to have agreed with their conclusion,  and what we do know of the case (the husband was abusive for years, she almost killed herself, etc also appears to lend support to their opinions).


----------



## Bedrockgames (Nov 7, 2013)

Zombie_Babies said:


> The bottom line is that she tried _nothing_ else.  She went directly to murder.




No one is disputing that. This isn't like fixing a radio, this was a crucial life and death decision. You dont get that many chances when you are battered wife and your husband is going to molest your child to make the best choice. There other options, obviously for whatever reason she didn't take them, but i believe its because she felt this was the best way to make sure her daughter was safe. Given her mental state, given the abuse she suffered, given that the husband was clearly eying the daughter, i feel a conviction with suspended sentence was the best outcome here.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Nov 7, 2013)

Bedrockgames said:


> The number is important because one factor being weighed is her mental state due to the abuse she suffered. If you have three experts recommending no jail time, then that is something to consider in your overall decision making. We dont know the details because the news article is so lean. These may have been experts brought in by the defense, or they may not have been, we do not know. But like i said, the judge seems to have agreed with their conclusion,  and what we do know of the case (the husband was abusive for years, she almost killed herself, etc also appears to lend support to their opinions).




If the judge heard them then they were part of the trial.  Who hired them becomes a pretty important bit of info.  Basically, IMO, there's not enough evidence to suggest that they were definitely on the level - whether it was one, three or a hundred people.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 7, 2013)

Zombie_Babies said:


> The bottom line is that she tried _nothing_ else.  She went directly to murder.




Actually, we don't know if she tried leaving him before or anything like that.  We only know how the case ended.  For all we know, this was her first or thirty-third attempted remedy to her situation.

And it was manslaughter or "a homicide",  not murder.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Nov 7, 2013)

Zombie_Babies said:


> If the judge heard them then they were part of the trial.  Who hired them becomes a pretty important bit of info.  Basically, IMO, there's not enough evidence to suggest that they were definitely on the level - whether it was one, three or a hundred people.




It is one piece of data. That is all. And like i said, the fact that the judge suspended the sentence says a lot about how compelling their testimony was. That with all the other details we do know, suggest to me she was a seriously abused woman, making a difficult and risky decision in a less than ideal mental state. That is not someone i am willing to put into prison, and the judge agrees with me. Now you don't have to share my conclusion. That's up to you. But i don't share your opinion that she deserves to be in prison. I feel the circumstances warranted special consideration and she was acting to protect her child. Clearly you feel differently.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 7, 2013)

Odds are good that if there were 3 experts, at least one was hired by the state.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Nov 7, 2013)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Actually, we don't know if she tried leaving him before or anything like that.  We just know how the case ended.




Yes there is a lot we dont know about their relationship and a lot we can probably assume. In a case where the woman was abused for years by the husband, she believes he is about to molest her daughter, and he is forcing her to lure young women to the home through online chats, I am inclined to believe the woman felt this was the only way out and the only way to protect her child.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Nov 7, 2013)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Actually, we don't know if she tried leaving him before or anything like that.  We only know how the case ended.  For all we know, this was her first or thirty-third attempted remedy to her situation.
> 
> And it was manslaughter or "a homicide",  not murder.



Well, one of the things BWS is that people believe that the their abuser is omnipresent or omniscient. If the BWS claim is true, she probably wouldn't have tried to run because she would have been too afraid that he would know about it and punish her for it. That may explain why she contemplated killing herself. Suicide would have been the only means of escape for her where he would not be able to find her and punish her afterwards.

On a side note, I think BWS will end up categorized the same as insanity and insanity defenses. That is to say, it'll be a purely legal term. The of BWS are bettered classified with other diagosis. I don't see it coming together into a single diagnosis any time soon, if at all.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Nov 7, 2013)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Odds are good that if there were 3 experts, at least one was hired by the state.



That's assuming that there were only three experts. There could have been more. The three mentioned may have been the ones hired by the defense.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Nov 7, 2013)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Actually, we don't know if she tried leaving him before or anything like that.  We only know how the case ended.  For all we know, this was her first or thirty-third attempted remedy to her situation.
> 
> And it was manslaughter or "a homicide",  not murder.




What we _do _know is that on the date she murdered her husband that he was asleep at the time.  She was also able to leave the home and use a neighbor's phone.  These are all things that would have allowed her to leave the home and call for help.  If she knew everything she said about her husband she could have relayed that information to the authorities and they would have been compelled to check it out.  

And yes, I know what she was convicted of.  It's not the actual crime she committed, though.  That's kinda why I'm debating.


----------



## Robin Hoodlum (Nov 7, 2013)

Meh.
All a woman has to do is simply claim abuse and she automatically receives pity and automatically paints the male in a negative light, no matter if she is telling the truth or not.

And ZB is right. She could have left the home while the husband slept. Instead she kills him. Smells like murder to me.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 7, 2013)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> That's assuming that there were only three experts. There could have been more. The three mentioned may have been the ones hired by the defense.




Allow me to clarify- it is highly unlikely that only defense experts would have examined her and testified.  It is almost automatic that the state will hire its own expert as well, unless both sides agree to have a single, mutually chosen diagnostician.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 7, 2013)

Zombie_Babies said:


> And yes, I know what she was convicted of.  It's not the actual crime she committed, though.  That's kinda why I'm debating.



Do you have some way to divine her mental state from press releases?

Murder requires a certain state of mind that the prosecution could not convince anyone she had, not even in the indictment phase.  That's the part of the pre-trial proceedings in which the prosecution formally charges the defendant with the crimes they will be held over for trial..and of which it has been famously said that you can convince grand juries to indict a ham sandwich for murder.

Thus the term manslaughter or homicide is proper, whereas murder is probably not.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Nov 7, 2013)

Robin Hoodlum said:


> Meh.
> All a woman has to do is simply claim abuse and she automatically receives pity and automatically paints the male in a negative light, no matter if she is telling the truth or not.




i agree we have to be careful here, because it is entirely possible for a woman to murder her husband and claim abuse even if he hasn't done anything....but this case has alot to suggest she was abused, he posed a threat to the daughter and he was genealy a dangerous person. It also did go to trial and she was convicted, so it wasn't like charges were dismissed. My take home from that is the court was basically saying the state doesn't endorse what she did, but it understands the situation she was in. So she now has a conviction on her record, but she doesn't have to serve time in prison. If the court believed her story, which is seems it did, then that seems the right decision in the end.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Nov 7, 2013)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Allow me to clarify- it is highly unlikely that only defense experts would have examined her and testified.  It is almost automatic that the state will hire its own expert as well, unless both sides agree to have a single, mutually chosen diagnostician.



Yes, I understand that. What I mean is that maybe the "professionals" cited in the article were the professionals hired by the defense, and that the ones hired by the prosecution did not have their opinions published in the article. The prosecution's experts may have testified, but their testimony may not have been included in the article, as they may not have agreed with the recommendation. Is that any clearer?


----------



## Robin Hoodlum (Nov 7, 2013)

But that may cause women to kill partners and then claim abuse in order to get leniency, truth be damned.

I wonder how things would have went if roles were reversed? What if the man was being abused, etc., and killed the woman. Do you think things would have turned out differently for the man?


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Nov 7, 2013)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Do you have some way to divine her mental state from press releases?
> 
> Murder requires a certain state of mind that the prosecution could not convince anyone she had, not even in the indictment phase.  That's the part of the pre-trial proceedings in which the prosecution formally charges the defendant with the crimes they will be held over for trial..and of which it has been famously said that you can convince grand juries to indict a ham sandwich for murder.
> 
> Thus the term manslaughter or homicide is proper, whereas murder is probably not.




Do you have some way to divine the mental state of the people who charged her?  Srsly, dood, you're acting like there's no way they could have just decided to give her a pass even before the trial started.  She walked into a sleeping man's room and shot him in the head multiple times.  She made up her mind to do it and then did it.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 7, 2013)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Yes, I understand that. What I mean is that maybe the "professionals" cited in the article were the professionals hired by the defense, and that the ones hired by the prosecution did not have their opinions published in the article. The prosecution's experts may have testified, but their testimony may not have been included in the article, as they may not have agreed with the recommendation. Is that any clearer?



Crystal!

The one thing we know for sure of this aspect of the trial is that whatever experts did testify did not convince a jury that she was an imminent or continuing danger to herself or others.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Nov 7, 2013)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Crystal!
> 
> The one thing we know for sure of this aspect of the trial is that whatever experts did testify did not convince a jury that *she was an imminent or continuing danger to herself or others*.



Which is actually one of the criticisms of BWS. The muser of someone by a person claiming BWS/BPS (battered person syndrome as it can apply to men as well) is attributed to some mental ailment that the person has because of all the abuse they have suffered at the hands of their abuser. Yet somehow, after killing their abuser, they are no longer a threat to anyone. It's as if killing the person somehow cured them. Seems odd. It may be accepted in the legal system, but in psychological circles, it appears a washy.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Nov 7, 2013)

Robin Hoodlum said:


> But that may cause women to kill partners and then claim abuse in order to get leniency, truth be damned.





it is possible. I think she was lucky though that she got off in this case, it could easily hat resulted in her going to prison. Still I think in this case she doesnt deserve prison, and wouldn't want to miscarry justice here out of fear that somewhere down the road, someone might kill her husband in cold blood and use abuse as a defense.



> I wonder how things would have went if roles were reversed? What if the man was being abused, etc., and killed the woman. Do you think things would have turned out differently for the man?




They probably would have been less sympathetic and i imagine he would have spent time in prison. That doesn't mean the outcome of this case was wrong though, it just means people still have a lot of biases about abuse when men are the victims.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 7, 2013)

Zombie_Babies said:


> Do you have some way to divine the mental state of the people who charged her?  Srsly, dood, you're acting like there's no way they could have just decided to give her a pass even before the trial started.  She walked into a sleeping man's room and shot him in the head multiple times.  She made up her mind to do it and then did it.



First, let me admit an error- she was actually initially charged with murder in the indictment.  Hat means the state prosecutors thought they could prove the necessary mental state for that crime.

However, the prosecution *could/did not* prove the necessary mental state for murder, and convicted her of the lesser included offense of manslaughter.  Here's why:



> §202§204
> Title 17-A: MAINE CRIMINAL CODE
> Part 2: SUBSTANTIVE OFFENSES
> Chapter 9: OFFENSES AGAINST THE PERSON
> ...




So, not "murder", but manslaughter, or the perfectly adequate "homicide" which presupposes nothing more than that a person has killed a human being.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 7, 2013)

Robin Hoodlum said:


> But that may cause women to kill partners and then claim abuse in order to get leniency, truth be damned.
> 
> I wonder how things would have went if roles were reversed? What if the man was being abused, etc., and killed the woman. Do you think things would have turned out differently for the man?



There are a lot of women doing life sentences for killing abusive significant others.  

BWS cases usually don't result in acquittals or even reduced sentences...maybe 1% of all such claims are successful.


----------



## Robin Hoodlum (Nov 7, 2013)

Bedrockgames said:


> it is possible. I think she was lucky though that she got off in this case, it could easily hat resulted in her going to prison. Still I think in this case she doesnt deserve prison, and wouldn't want to miscarry justice here out of fear that somewhere down the road, someone might kill her husband in cold blood and use abuse as a defense.
> 
> 
> 
> They probably would have been less sympathetic and i imagine he would have spent time in prison. That doesn't mean the outcome of this case was wrong though, it just means people still have a lot of biases about abuse when men are the victims.




Agreed.


----------



## Robin Hoodlum (Nov 7, 2013)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> There are a lot of women doing life sentences for killing abusive significant others.
> 
> BWS cases usually don't result in acquittals or even reduced sentences...maybe 1% of all such claims are successful.




Fair enough.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 7, 2013)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Which is actually one of the criticisms of BWS. The muser of someone by a person claiming BWS/BPS (battered person syndrome as it can apply to men as well) is attributed to some mental ailment that the person has because of all the abuse they have suffered at the hands of their abuser. Yet somehow, after killing their abuser, they are no longer a threat to anyone. It's as if killing the person somehow cured them. Seems odd. It may be accepted in the legal system, but in psychological circles, it appears a washy.




One of my best buddies is a PsyD who almost went into the BAU.  We often discuss how the language of the law and of human psychology overlap...and may yet mean totally different things.  Its a mine(mind)field both for those chosen to give expert terminology in criminal cases or civil comitment hearings, as well as for those in my profession who may be reading a report and thinking one thing when the expert is saying something a bit different.

BWS is one term that is problematic- especially the "syndrome" part- as are "psychopath" and "sociopath"- terms that get a lot of use in the news and in legal circles, but which don't reflect actual diagnoses.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Nov 7, 2013)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> One of my best buddies is a PsyD who almost went into the BAU.  We often discuss how the language of the law and of human psychology overlap...and may yet mean totally different things.  Its a mine(mind)field both for those chosen to give expert terminology in criminal cases or civil comitment hearings, as well as for those in my profession who may be reading a report and thinking one thing when the expert is saying something a bit different.
> 
> BWS is one term that is problematic- especially the "syndrome" part- as are "psychopath" and "sociopath"- terms that get a lot of use in the news and in legal circles, but which don't reflect actual diagnoses.



Some times terms get dumbed down for the masses. A lot of times those reporting the news don't understand the legal or psychology definition of a term. I blame lawyers.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 7, 2013)

Don't forget the cops, too.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Nov 7, 2013)

What do cops have to do with it?


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Nov 7, 2013)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> First, let me admit an error- she was actually initially charged with murder in the indictment.  Hat means the state prosecutors thought they could prove the necessary mental state for that crime.
> 
> However, the prosecution *could/did not* prove the necessary mental state for murder, and convicted her of the lesser included offense of manslaughter.  Here's why:
> 
> ...




I understand what the prosecution failed to do.  I simply disagree with the verdict because I feel it was based far more on emotion than fact.


----------



## Kramodlog (Nov 7, 2013)

Zombie_Babies said:


> I understand what the prosecution failed to do.  I simply disagree with the verdict because I feel it was based far more on emotion than fact.



Pretty much. The victim being a neo-nazi and Hitler fan was mentioned a lot, but that is not a crime and certainly not a reason to kill him. It might be a potential motif for why he wanted a dirty bomb, but we can't even know that for sure, and certainly not a excuse for murder.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 7, 2013)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> What do cops have to do with it?




They use the same lingo as lawyers...and more often...in the news.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 7, 2013)

Zombie_Babies said:


> I understand what the prosecution failed to do.  I simply disagree with the verdict because I feel it was based far more on emotion than fact.






goldomark said:


> Pretty much. The victim being a neo-nazi and Hitler fan was mentioned a lot, but that is not a crime and certainly not a reason to kill him. It might be a potential motif for why he wanted a dirty bomb, but we can't even know that for sure, and certainly not a excuse for murder.




So neither of you buy into the state's statutory distinction between murder and manslaughter as it applies in this case?



> ...the person causes the death while under the influence of extreme anger or extreme fear brought about by adequate provocation.




If not, do you not accept manslaughter in general or you don't think she was "adequately provoked?"


----------



## Kramodlog (Nov 7, 2013)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> So neither of you buy into the state's statutory distinction between murder and manslaughter as it applies in this case?
> 
> If not, do you not accept manslaughter in general or you don't think she was "adequately provoked?"



I can't speak for ZB, but in this case, there is a lack of adequate provocation. She wasn't in immediate danger and neither was her daughter. 

I couldn't find 1st in Maine, but I did find 2nd degree murder : 







> an intentional killing that is not premeditated or planned, nor committed in a reasonable "heat of passion".





What I could find quickly on "heat of passion": 


> A finding that a person who killed another acted in the heat of passion will reduce murder to Manslaughter  under certain circumstances. The essential prerequisites for such a reduction are that the accused must be provoked to a point of great anger or rage, such that the person loses his or her normal capacity for self-control; the circumstances must be such that a reasonable person, faced with the same degree of provocation, would react in a similar manner; and finally, there must not have been an opportunity for the accused to have "cooled off" or regained self-control during the period between the provocation and the killing.





2nd degree seems to fit.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 7, 2013)

> ...and finally, there must not have been an opportunity for the accused to have "cooled off" or regained self-control during the period between the provocation and the killing.




This is most likely why it was manslaughter and not 2nd degree- she went from gun to her head to killing her husband without a significant cooling off period.


----------



## Kramodlog (Nov 7, 2013)

That is not clear. 

And suicide as provocation?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 8, 2013)

goldomark said:


> That is not clear.
> 
> And suicide as provocation?




The case as I have read and seen it presented essentially say the same thing: she was sitting in her room, finger in the trigger, then contemplated her daughter's possible molestation if she were not around to protect her.  She then immediately got up, sent her kid next door, shot her husband, and called the cops.  It was all a sequence of minutes.

Prosecutors are fairly politically minded here in the USA.  It's usually a stepping stone job for those with political aspirations.  As such, they are not in the habit of making plea deals to give murderers suspended sentences when they're not going after "bigger fish" and they have a confession and the literal smoking gun.  But that is exactly what happened here.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/2010/01/08/maine-woman-who-killed-husband-wont-go-to-prison/



As for suicide as provocation, no.  Suicide as state of fear and anger, with the constant state of mental and physical abuse, plus a just-realized fear that her daughter would be her husband's next victim as provocation.

We know he had 16 encounters with the police- admittedly some as victim- for violence with no arrests.  She may have perceived that the police would not help.  With his wealth, she may not have felt able to run far enough away.

Against that backdrop, she made the decision to kill herself, then changed her mind and acted to kill her tormentor.


----------



## Kramodlog (Nov 8, 2013)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> The case as I have read and seen it presented essentially say the same thing: she was sitting in her room, finger in the trigger, then contemplated her daughter's possible molestation if she were not around to protect her.  She then immediately got up, sent her kid next door, shot her husband, and called the cops.  It was all a sequence of minutes.



Possible, but not that clear: 







> On the morning of Dec. 9, 2009, Amber Cummings and her daughter, Claira, woke up early and ate breakfast together, as was their normal routine. The mother then went to her bedroom, where she said she put a gun in her mouth and considered killing herself. Instead, she decided that she had to kill her husband to protect Claira.
> She took a Colt .45-caliber revolver, walked into her husband's bedroom and fired two bullets into his head while he slept, then fled with her daughter to a neighbor's home and called police.



Not sure how long all of this took.



> Prosecutors are fairly politically minded here in the USA.  It's usually a stepping stone job for those with political aspirations.  As such, they are not in the habit of making plea deals to give murderers suspended sentences when they're not going after "bigger fish" and they have a confession and the literal smoking gun.  But that is exactly what happened here.
> 
> http://www.foxnews.com/story/2010/01/08/maine-woman-who-killed-husband-wont-go-to-prison/



Yup, but this is very a special case. It is very easy to feel sympathy for this woman. There were 50 protestors with "free Amber" shirts outside apparently. Going for a conviction might backfire and not help that political career, as the procecutor would look insensitive.



> As for suicide as provocation, no.  Suicide as state of fear and anger, with the constant state of mental and physical abuse, plus a just-realized fear that her daughter would be her husband's next victim as provocation.





> [...]such that the person loses his or her normal capacity for self-control [...]



. She sounded rather in control.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 8, 2013)

goldomark said:


> Possible, but not that clear: Not sure how long all of this took.



Well, this is one of those things in US law that is drafted and interpreted broadly.  "Cooling off" periods in homicide statutes are almost always defined by a "reasonable man" standard, and Maine is no exception.  So what happens is they have to convince a jury (or judge, depending) that "in ________ situation, a reasonable man" would not have cooled down.

Because this was a negotiated sentence, we can infer that the prosecutor did not believe he could convince 12 jurors that there was sufficient time to cool down.



> Yup, but this is very a special case. It is very easy to feel sympathy for this woman. There were 50 protestors with "free Amber" shirts outside apparently. Going for a conviction might backfire and not help that political career, as the procecutor would look insensitive.




That's nothing unusual at all.  You'd see much the same in any BWS type case in the USA.  And yet, it is rarely a successful defense.



> She sounded rather in control.




Again, the prosecutor clearly didn't think he could convince a jury of that, at least not to the standard required by law, so he settled for a negotiated plea deal.

Remember, he's working with a LOT more data than we'd find in a news report- he's got expert testimony reports, police reports, officer depositions, other witness testimony (the daughter, the 911 operator, the neighbors, etc.), possible police reports displaying a pattern of business behavior, etc.

And a dirty bomb.  And the FBI talking about its sophistication and completeness.

All this would have been entered into evidence and weighed by a jury.  He looks at all of this.  He's got experience with the judges in the area.  He's got experience with how liberal or conservative the jurors in his county tend to trend.  He's going to look at what is spread out on his desk and decide whether he can win this case, and of so, what it would take.

And looking at all of this, he decided to settle.


(Oh yeah- complete non sequitur, goldomark- you might not want to use too many colors in the dark grey/black/blue side of things, since that's next to invisible against the black background of the forum's Legacy skin setting.)


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Nov 8, 2013)

These are actually another of the criticisms of BPS/BWS.



Dannyalcatraz said:


> Well, this is one of those things in US law that is drafted and interpreted broadly.  *"Cooling off" periods in homicide statutes are almost always defined by a "reasonable man" standard*, and Maine is no exception.  So what happens is they have to convince a jury (or judge, depending) that "in ________ situation, a reasonable man" would not have cooled down.



Which is actually why this happens, or doesn't happen.


> That's nothing unusual at all.  You'd see much the same in any BWS type case in the USA.  And yet,* it is rarely a successful defense.*



Usually, the person claiming BPS kills the other person while the other person is vulnerable, like the sleeping nazi. It contradicts the idea that the battered person killed their abuser because of some "syndrome" or pathology. Basically, the idea is that all the years of abuse have caused a mental breakdown in the victim. They have "learned helplessness." So the victim, not thinking rationally, kills their tormentor because that is the only way they can be safe, or so they think. However, this abusers are for the most part killed when they are helpless or in some way vulnerable. You have to admit that it takes a certain clarity of mind to identify moments of vulnerability and act at that time to end the other person's life. 


In the case of child-molester-Nazi guy, I think it became clear to the prosecutor that even though the woman had broken the law, it was gong to be really hard for any juror to convict based on the dead gy being a nazi... who was building a bomb... to kill the President... and he was sexually attracted to children. I mean, Nazi alone? Yeah, she more than likely would have been convicted. Nazi and likes little girls? She could have tortured him for days before tossing him feet first into a wood-chipper and people would still find it hard to convicted her because they would have thought he deserved it.

I get the feeling the defense hired a legal psychologist while the prosecutor decided the save a few bucks. They cold have avoided spending all that money on a trial and gotten the same results.


----------



## Kramodlog (Nov 8, 2013)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Well, this is one of those things in US law that is drafted and interpreted broadly.  "Cooling off" periods in homicide statutes are almost always defined by a "reasonable man" standard, and Maine is no exception.  So what happens is they have to convince a jury (or judge, depending) that "in ________ situation, a reasonable man" would not have cooled down.



You're the one who implied that a few minutes was not enough for a cool off: 







> _It was all a sequence of minutes._



.All I pointed out was that we didn't know how long it took from what we can glean from the article you linked.



> That's nothing unusual at all.  You'd see much the same in any BWS type case in the USA.  And yet, it is rarely a successful defense.



A wife beating nazi child molesting nuclear terrorist isn't that unusual!?



> Again, the prosecutor clearly didn't think he could convince a jury of that, at least not to the standard required by law, so he settled for a negotiated plea deal.
> 
> Remember, he's working with a LOT more data than we'd find in a news report- he's got expert testimony reports, police reports, officer depositions, other witness testimony (the daughter, the 911 operator, the neighbors, etc.), possible police reports displaying a pattern of business behavior, etc.
> 
> ...



Maybe, we certainly do not have all the info. It also might be better for his/her political career to be gentle with Mrs. Beaten by a nazi child molesting nuclear terrorist.

He/she could also feel sympathy for the lady. Althought that raises question of professionalism. 



> (Oh yeah- complete non sequitur, goldomark- you might not want to use too many colors in the dark grey/black/blue side of things, since that's next to invisible against the black background of the forum's Legacy skin setting.)



Derailing threads is evil. 

I'll try to pay attention to it.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 8, 2013)

goldomark said:


> You're the one who implied that a few minutes was not enough for a cool off: .All I pointed out was that we didn't know how long it took from what we can glean from the article you linked.




While we don't know the exact timeline, we do know ht it all occurred within the span of an otherwise normal (for them) morning.



> A wife beating nazi child molesting nuclear terrorist isn't that unusual!?




I was referring to the crowds of supporters.  Nearly every BWS case draws crowds of supporters in or near the courthouse.



> Maybe, we certainly do not have all the info. It also might be better for his/her political career to be gentle with Mrs. Beaten by a nazi child molesting nuclear terrorist.
> 
> He/she could also feel sympathy for the lady. Althought that raises question of professionalism.




Well, it certainly couldn't help his case for murder that the FBI press releases described her husband's multiple terror-weapon making endeavors to be well-funded, sophisticated, and in an advanced state of completion.

Still, there is yet one more step in the plea arrangement process that acts as a safeguard: any pleas must be accepted and signed by the court- often not an elected position.  If the judge finds the plea arrangement to be against the law or not in the public's interest, it can be rejected, and the case continues.  (Maine criminal court judges are appointed for 6 year terms, not elected, so they're theoretically a bit less politically motivated.)

And the judge in this case- who also saw the evidence- was very confident in the decision to accept the plea, as is clear from his comments in this article:
http://bangordailynews.com/2010/01/07/news/no-jail-for-woman-who-killed-husband/




> I'll try to pay attention to it.



For some reason, because of one of the recent software updates, text that is copied & pasted sometimes gets unwanted color editing when it gets posted.


----------



## Kramodlog (Nov 8, 2013)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> While we don't know the exact timeline, we do know ht it all occurred within the span of an otherwise normal (for them) morning.



Indeed, but it doesn't clarify the cool off question. 



> Well, it certainly couldn't help his case for murder that the FBI press releases described her husband's multiple terror-weapon making endeavors to be well-funded, sophisticated, and in an advanced state of completion.



Except her defense was about her daughter, not fear that other people would be hurt by the bomb. 



> Still, there is yet one more step in the plea arrangement process that acts as a safeguard: any pleas must be accepted and signed by the court- often not an elected position.  If the judge finds the plea arrangement to be against the law or not in the public's interest, it can be rejected, and the case continues.  (Maine criminal court judges are appointed for 6 year terms, not elected, so they're theoretically a bit less politically motivated.)
> 
> And the judge in this case- who also saw the evidence- was very confident in the decision to accept the plea, as is clear from his comments in this article:
> http://bangordailynews.com/2010/01/07/news/no-jail-for-woman-who-killed-husband/



I'm sure he was. It is not like the risk of a public backlash was great with this case. The problem is that public opinion or personal sentiments shouldn't have any bearing on a court case or its sentencing. 



> For some reason, because of one of the recent software updates, text that is copied & pasted sometimes gets unwanted color editing when it gets posted.



Not just sometimes, but modifying the color before posting the text doesn't always change it. Same for size. I blame Morrus for being cheap.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Nov 8, 2013)

goldomark said:


> Pretty much. The victim being a neo-nazi and Hitler fan was mentioned a lot, but that is not a crime and certainly not a reason to kill him. It might be a potential motif for why he wanted a dirty bomb, but we can't even know that for sure, and certainly not a excuse for murder.




Yup.  They assassinated his character to provide a handy excuse for her assassination of him.  We all get this dood was bad news, he just wasn't doing anything at the time that warranted his immediate killing.



Dannyalcatraz said:


> So neither of you buy into the state's statutory distinction between murder and manslaughter as it applies in this case?
> 
> 
> 
> If not, do you not accept manslaughter in general or you don't think she was "adequately provoked?"




I've been saying it over and over again (aren't internet debates fun?  ).  I don't believe she was adequately provoked.  He posed no immediate threat and that's something that, quite simply, cannot be argued.  He was _asleep_.  So far as we know the child was not molested at any previous point and he had no confirmed plans to molest her in the future.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Nov 8, 2013)

Zombie_Babies said:


> Yup.  They assassinated his character to provide a handy excuse for her assassination of him.  We all get this dood was bad news, he just wasn't doing anything at the time that warranted his immediate killing.
> 
> 
> 
> I've been saying it over and over again (aren't internet debates fun?  ).  I don't believe she was adequately provoked.  He posed no immediate threat and that's something that, quite simply, cannot be argued.  He was _asleep_.  So far as we know the child was not molested at any previous point and he had no confirmed plans to molest her in the future.




I think these are all relevant to the case though. It is not normal to acquire bomb making material, have paranoid ideas about the president and to embrace nazi ideology. These are red flags, this combination of behavior suggests someone about to commit violence and gives credibility to the woman's story of abuse. The nazi thing shouldn't be the lead in the story, but it shouldn't be ignored, and reporting factually that the guy appeared to be heading down the path of right wing terrorism, isn't character assasination, it is the truth.

no one is disputing that she killed him in his sleep, or arguing he posed an immediate threat. All people are saying is he was engaging in pedophelic behavior (he even forced the wife to try to lure young women to the house via internet chats) and spoke openly about his fantasies with the wife. She had good reason to worry for the daughter's safety. Add to that years of abuse and i think her actions become understandable.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Nov 8, 2013)

Zombie_Babies said:


> So far as we know the child was not molested at any previous point and he had no confirmed plans to molest her in the future.




people usually do not confirm their plans to molest someone. We know he was increasingly obsessed with young women, talked about it with his wife, tried to lure young women to the house and the wife believed he intended to molest the daughter.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Nov 8, 2013)

Bedrockgames said:


> I think these are all relevant to the case though. It is not normal to acquire bomb making material, have paranoid ideas about the president and to embrace nazi ideology. These are red flags, this combination of behavior suggests someone about to commit violence and gives credibility to the woman's story of abuse. The nazi thing shouldn't be the lead in the story, but it shouldn't be ignored, and reporting factually that the guy appeared to be heading down the path of right wing terrorism, isn't character assasination, it is the truth.




Doing things that are not normal and potentially preparing to commit a crime are not sufficient reason for a private citizen to kill you.  'About to commit violence' and 'imminent personal threat' are two very different things.  She is not a law enforcement official.  She doesn't get to make these calls.



> no one is disputing that she killed him in his sleep, or arguing he posed an immediate threat. All people are saying is he was engaging in pedophelic behavior (he even forced the wife to try to lure young women to the house via internet chats) and spoke openly about his fantasies with the wife. She had good reason to worry for the daughter's safety. Add to that years of abuse and i think her actions become understandable.




Actually, some people are arguing the threat was immediate.  

Again, I don't think she did anything I don't understand.  The thing is, understanding why she did something doesn't make it legal.  Emotion has nothing to do with that.  In this case, though, it appears that's exactly what happened.  People understood the why and stopped thinking about what she actually did.  They convicted her of a lesser crime and gave her probation.  She deserved more.



Bedrockgames said:


> people usually do not confirm their plans to molest someone. We know he was increasingly obsessed with young women, talked about it with his wife, tried to lure young women to the house and the wife believed he intended to molest the daughter.




Right.  She believed he intended it.  Well, last I checked that's not enough to permit someone to kill someone else.  And even if her belief was true - something we cannot prove - that _still _doesn't make her judge, jury and executioner and it _still _doesn't mean that murder was her only course of action.  If she knew that she could have left.  She could have called the cops.  She didn't.

I'll never understand why some of ya'all keep acting like murder was her _only _option.  It wasn't.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Nov 8, 2013)

No one has said what she did was legal and no one has said murder was her only option. We've said that each case is different depending on circumstances, judges have discretion in sentencing, and in this case we feel here actions were understandable enough that prison time was not warranted. Everyone does not get the same sentence for the same crime, becaus circumstances and context matter. We've also said we believe she probably felt like this was her best option (whether it was her best option is another matter). You don't have to agree, but i cannot support sending this woman to prison. We just disagree on the matter and that is fine.


----------



## Janx (Nov 8, 2013)

Zombie_Babies said:


> I'll never understand why some of ya'all keep acting like murder was her _only _option.  It wasn't.




I don't think we are.  On page one of this thread, I already pointed that out that she technically could have called the cops.

I accept that there are MULTIPLE solutions to the problem of the bad husband.  Some legal, some not.  I actually don't care about the legality of the solutions from the perspective of a Court of Law.  i am a big fan of vigilante justice, providing it is directed at the appropriate target and doesn't miss and there's sufficient evidence the target was evil.  Sometimes the person at ground zero SHOULD be the judge, jury and executioner.  And if they are wrong, the legal system will take care of that.

So the fact that this guy at SOME past point would have been in an active event where she WOULD have been justified in shooting him, merely means she had a delayed reaction in ACTUALLY shooting him.  Given that she didn't actually need to put on a costume and stalk him, is OK with me.

Given that I also live in the real world and have to obey the laws of the land that I may or may not agree with, the woman also does.

She was charged and went to trial.  This wasn't swept under the rug.  A jury of her peers found her guilty and chose a light punishment for her.

I'm sorry you didn't get the outcome you wanted which apparently was to see her go to jail and not raise her own daughter.

Such is life in a society.  Sometimes I get what I want, sometimes you get what you want.  I do not think it does society any good to bemoan the fact that a court case didn't go the way you wanted.  So long as no harm was done, let's move on.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Nov 8, 2013)

Bedrockgames said:


> No one has said what she did was legal and no one has said murder was her only option. We've said that each case is different depending on circumstances, judges have discretion in sentencing, and in this case we feel here actions were understandable enough that prison time was not warranted. Everyone does not get the same sentence for the same crime, becaus circumstances and context matter. We've also said we believe she probably felt like this was her best option (whether it was her best option is another matter). You don't have to agree, but i cannot support sending this woman to prison. We just disagree on the matter and that is fine.




Welp, that certainly does appear to be where we're at.  Thanks for the discussion/argument.  It was a lot of fun!  



Janx said:


> I accept that there are MULTIPLE solutions to the problem of the bad husband.  Some legal, some not.  I actually don't care about the legality of the solutions from the perspective of a Court of Law.  i am a big fan of vigilante justice, providing it is directed at the appropriate target and doesn't miss and there's sufficient evidence the target was evil.  Sometimes the person at ground zero SHOULD be the judge, jury and executioner.  And if they are wrong, the legal system will take care of that.




That's disturbing.  You see, it's implying that you're perfectly comfortable with vigilante justice missing the target because the legal system will make it right.  Well, last I checked the legal system can't raise the dead.



> So the fact that this guy at SOME past point would have been in an active event where she WOULD have been justified in shooting him, merely means she had a delayed reaction in ACTUALLY shooting him.  Given that she didn't actually need to put on a costume and stalk him, is OK with me.




Whoa, slow down there pardner.  It most certainly is not a fact that he ever put her in a position where lethal self defense was warranted and, even if he did, she still shouldn't get a pass for killing him when he wasn't a threat.



> She was charged and went to trial.  This wasn't swept under the rug.  A jury of her peers found her guilty and chose a light punishment for her.




Yep.  Emotionally.



> I'm sorry you didn't get the outcome you wanted which apparently was to see her go to jail and not raise her own daughter.




Again, let's slow down.  That's a hell of an assumption there.  You see, what you say I want - her to not be able to raise her daughter - would actually be a consequence of what I want which, of course, is proper punishment for her crime.

A lot of bad folks in prison have kids.  Should we let all of 'em out?



> Such is life in a society.  Sometimes I get what I want, sometimes you get what you want.  I do not think it does society any good to bemoan the fact that a court case didn't go the way you wanted.  So long as no harm was done, let's move on.




I'm not bemoaning anything - I'm participating in an exchange of ideas that's interesting, thought provoking and informative in regard to the personalities of the folks I'm discussing this with.  It's kinda sorta exactly what an internet forum is all about.

We can move on, though.  What-evs.  I will tell you, though, that if you make assumptions about my position or intent or whatever I'll continue to correct you.  That's just how I am.  Oh, and I don't mean to imply that you did or will do any of that on purpose.  I definitely do not think that's how you roll - far from it.  Just wanna make that clear.


----------



## Janx (Nov 8, 2013)

Zombie_Babies said:


> Welp, that certainly does appear to be where we're at.  Thanks for the discussion/argument.  It was a lot of fun!




That's because the conversation looped.  And we all recognized she had other choices.  Some of us just don't mind the choice she made, even though it wasn't the best.



Zombie_Babies said:


> That's disturbing.  You see, it's implying that you're perfectly comfortable with vigilante justice missing the target because the legal system will make it right.  Well, last I checked the legal system can't raise the dead.




It would be disturbing if I believed or acted on that to the extreme letter of the statement.  We already have bad guys killing good people (though the crime rate has gone down thanks to Freakonomics).  Can't raise them either.  Justice system isn't perfect, and never will be.  But somebody with direct contact with the bad guy is in a good position to cut out the weeds.  I prefer such situations to be cut and dried obvious who the bad guy was, so I am not approving rampant vigilantism either.



Zombie_Babies said:


> Whoa, slow down there pardner.  It most certainly is not a fact that he ever put her in a position where lethal self defense was warranted and, even if he did, she still shouldn't get a pass for killing him when he wasn't a threat.




Assuming she was ever beaten by him, that warrants lethal self defense in JanxLand.  I reserve a special level in hell for wife beaters and I like to receive them direct from their spouses or new boyfriends if possible.



Zombie_Babies said:


> Yep.  Emotionally.




They call it Jury Nullification, but the law specifically covers that a jury member may vote his conscience.  If I do not believe that a woman who was abused by her husband warrants going to jail, I do NOT have to side with the letter of the law.  That's what happens when Chaotic Good people get involved with writing the Constitution.



Zombie_Babies said:


> Again, let's slow down.  That's a hell of an assumption there.  You see, what you say I want - her to not be able to raise her daughter - would actually be a consequence of what I want which, of course, is proper punishment for her crime.




I did use a qualifying term "apparently" as I cannot actually know your intent.  If you want to punish the woman who was in unusual circumstance (it's not like my wife deciding to off me for no reason), then you are also in effect choosing that she not raise her daughter.  She might actually suck at raising her daughter (she did have poor taste in men apparently), but those are variables outside the information I have.



Zombie_Babies said:


> A lot of bad folks in prison have kids.  Should we let all of 'em out?




No, because they are bad.  I do not believe the woman is bad (lacking any info that she has done any other bad things).  Therefore, putting a presumably good woman who did bad but justifiable thing is not a useful punishment for her act.  As sociologists have apparently proven that stiff punishments don't disuade others from doing a crime, it seems there is little value and more harm in punishing THIS woman stiffly.

I would prefer to put actual bad people in prison.  People who will be repeat offenders or whose crime was very damaging to society.  I don't see how this woman damaged society.  She probably reduced calls to police for this bad guy and she just happened to prevent terrorism (which if she didn't know he was building a bomb, she also didn't know if he was feeling her kid up and that is VERY common).  If she's not likely to kill again or otherwise disrupt society, let's put some stuff on her record and give her time served (including time with mr. wife beater).



Zombie_Babies said:


> I'm not bemoaning anything - I'm participating in an exchange of ideas that's interesting, thought provoking and informative in regard to the personalities of the folks I'm discussing this with.  It's kinda sorta exactly what an internet forum is all about.




All good things.  The trap is if we get stuck in trying to be a "right fighter" as Dr. Phil would call it, or if we're just blasting the same point that nobody else cares about.  Like the jury, I think a majority here doesn't care that what she did was legally wrong.  It's an impasse.



Zombie_Babies said:


> We can move on, though.  What-evs.  I will tell you, though, that if you make assumptions about my position or intent or whatever I'll continue to correct you.  That's just how I am.  Oh, and I don't mean to imply that you did or will do any of that on purpose.  I definitely do not think that's how you roll - far from it.  Just wanna make that clear.




I try to to include qualifying words like "apparently" or "appears" or some such to indicate that I think a person's position is XYZ, but to leave room for being wrong and to show I am not stating it as an absolute fact.  Deducing intent is always tricky and EN advises not assigning somebody's intent.  However, some things are logically deducible.  If you say the woman should to go to jail, then I am inclined to believe your intent is that the woman should go to jail and that you are arguing with that goal.

I do find, that if you are attempting to argue as a devil's advocate (choosing a specific side as its own exercise in debate), it helps to declare that upfront.  Otherwise, it can make discussion maddening as "we don't care that what she did was illegal, so why do you keep bringing that point up" happens.

Also remember, I suck at debate.  I might have a few points, but I am not going to successfully sway anybody.


----------



## Kramodlog (Nov 8, 2013)

Janx said:


> She was charged and went to trial.  This wasn't swept under the rug.  A jury of her peers found her guilty and chose a light punishment for her.



Actually, there was no trial. There was a plea deal between her and the prosecutor. The judge was left with the sentencing and basically gave her probation even if the prosecutor wanted a year in prison. 



> I'm sorry you didn't get the outcome you wanted which apparently was to see her go to jail and not raise her own daughter.



So, being a parents means people should avoid prison for the crimes they did?



> Such is life in a society.  Sometimes I get what I want, sometimes you get what you want.  I do not think it does society any good to bemoan the fact that a court case didn't go the way you wanted.  So long as no harm was done, let's move on.



It is more fundamental than that. It is a question of everyone being equal under the law. That only a few trained and designated people can apply the law. 

It is not like you would want someone to shoot you because of your views on murder and they thought you were a threat to them so they needed to take the law into their own hands, right?


----------



## Bedrockgames (Nov 8, 2013)

goldomark said:


> Actually, there was no trial. There was a plea deal between her and the prosecutor. The judge was left with the sentencing and basically gave her probation even if the prosecutor wanted a year in prison.
> 
> ?



But that is how the law works. The judge has the power to do this sort of thing. That isn't sweeping it under the rug. Plea deals occur all the time, for a variety of reasons, and judges suspend sentences as well. It isn't like it didn't go through the court system. Not every case goes to trial.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Nov 8, 2013)

goldomark said:


> It is more fundamental than that. It is a question of everyone being equal under the law. That only a few trained and designated people can apply the law.
> 
> It is not like you would want someone to shoot you because of your views on murder and they thought you were a threat to them so they needed to take the law into their own hands, right?



But she didn't shoot him for his views on murder. She shot him because he had been abusing her, was getting into pedophilia, was forcing her to help him and she had good reason to believe he was interested in acting that out on their daughter. Everyone is equal before the law, but not all situations or acts are morally or legally equal. Killing a person you believe poses a threat to your child, who has abused you, does not have the same moral characteristics as killing someone whom you simply disagree with. It just doesn't. I would be prepared to send a person who killed someone over ideology to prison. In a case where you have a woman abused over years by the husband, who appears to believe he poses a threat to the daughter, I am much less convinced prison is the best solution. In this case, the judge felt the circumstances warranted suspending the sentence, and I agree based on the information available.


----------



## Kramodlog (Nov 8, 2013)

Bedrockgames said:


> But that is how the law works. The judge has the power to do this sort of thing. That isn't sweeping it under the rug. Plea deals occur all the time, for a variety of reasons, and judges suspend sentences as well. It isn't like it didn't go through the court system. Not every case goes to trial.



Indeed, but not every murderer just gets probation.

On a side note, why were you wrong about 5e?


----------



## Kramodlog (Nov 8, 2013)

Bedrockgames said:


> But she didn't shoot him for his views on murder. She shot him because he had been abusing her, was getting into pedophilia, was forcing her to help him and she had good reason to believe he was interested in acting that out on their daughter.



Reasons to call the cops, not shoot him. There was no immediate threat.



> Everyone is equal before the law, but not all situations or acts are morally or legally equal. Killing a person you believe poses a threat to your child, who has abused you, does not have the same moral characteristics as killing someone whom you simply disagree with. It just doesn't. I would be prepared to send a person who killed someone over ideology to prison. In a case where you have a woman abused over years by the husband, who appears to believe he poses a threat to the daughter, I am much less convinced prison is the best solution. In this case, the judge felt the circumstances warranted suspending the sentence, and I agree based on the information available.



What if she tried to hire a contact killer?


----------



## Janx (Nov 8, 2013)

goldomark said:


> Actually, there was no trial. There was a plea deal between her and the prosecutor. The judge was left with the sentencing and basically gave her probation even if the prosecutor wanted a year in prison.






goldomark said:


> So, being a parents means people should avoid prison for the crimes they did?




Why would I think that?   I think you are parsing too thinly on points.  My views on what merits what punishment are more complicated than I can articulate.

The woman appears to be a good person (doing a bad thing to a bad person does not automatically make her bad)
The woman killed a bad person who did bad things to her for years
the woman is a parent and there is no evidence that she is bad at it
There is a fair track record that kids who aren't raised by their parents don't do as well (barring situations where their original parents are crappy)

I see no reason to punish her because she is not a bad person.  She is not likely to become a threat to others.
Additionally, punishing her would additionally hurt her daughter.

Prison is where I want people who do harm to society to be.  Since that is not the case here by my reckoning, I don't want her to go to prison as it would do more harm than good.



goldomark said:


> It is more fundamental than that. It is a question of everyone being equal under the law. That only a few trained and designated people can apply the law.




Everybody's not equal under the law.  They are at the whim of whether they have a good lawyer or have looks that help them appeal to the jury.  At best, they are not discriminated against.  I do not want to live in a society where the law is enforced like computer code and situational exceptions are not recognized.



goldomark said:


> It is not like you would want someone to shoot you because of your views on murder and they thought you were a threat to them so they needed to take the law into their own hands, right?




Of course I don't.  But there is a world of difference from me suggesting a silly legal philosophy that someone doesn't agree with versus actually living with an actual bad person who abuses you.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Nov 8, 2013)

goldomark said:


> Indeed, but not every murderer just gets probation.
> 
> On a side note, why were you wrong about 5e?




i made a wager on enworld that 5E would come out this year.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Nov 8, 2013)

goldomark said:


> Reasons to call the cops, not shoot him. There was no immediate threat.




calling the cops is probably the better option, but it is no guarantee of her or the daugher's safety. Cops were called on jeffrey dalmer while he was trying to kill one of his victims and they bought his story and left the victim with him. Those kinds of cases rare, but i can see how someone in that situtation would kill the husband while he slept rather than chance calling the authorities. It is worth pointing out that she calld the police after she committed the deed. To me this case is not much different than a sex slave murdering her pimp or an abused child murdering the abuser. These are not the same as killing someone in cold blood, and i do not think they always require prison time. 





> What if she tried to hire a contact killer?




I think it looks dirtier if she hired a contract killer, and she probably would have served a prison sentence if she had, but personally i think given the circumstances, it is not an act i would want her to go to prison for.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Nov 8, 2013)

Janx said:


> That's because the conversation looped.  And we all recognized she had other choices.  Some of us just don't mind the choice she made, even though it wasn't the best.




Yep, at this point it's more about learning the why to understand the person, IMO.  It's where things get interesting.  We're not gonna change each others' minds and that's ok.  We can, though, still pick up things about each other through continued discussion ... to a point.  



> It would be disturbing if I believed or acted on that to the extreme letter of the statement.  We already have bad guys killing good people (though the crime rate has gone down thanks to Freakonomics).  Can't raise them either.  Justice system isn't perfect, and never will be.  But somebody with direct contact with the bad guy is in a good position to cut out the weeds.  I prefer such situations to be cut and dried obvious who the bad guy was, so I am not approving rampant vigilantism either.




Well that's a lot more reasonable.



> Assuming she was ever beaten by him, that warrants lethal self defense in JanxLand.  I reserve a special level in hell for wife beaters and I like to receive them direct from their spouses or new boyfriends if possible.




Me?  I'm all for equality.  If punching a dood in the face isn't enough to warrant my sleepy-time shooting then punching a woman in the face isn't either.  Women are a lot tougher than a lot of people give 'em credit for.  That's not to say that punching them is ok - it's not - but it's no worse (still bad) than punching a man.

Equality means equal in all things - not just the ones that we don't feel squicky about.



> They call it Jury Nullification, but the law specifically covers that a jury member may vote his conscience.  If I do not believe that a woman who was abused by her husband warrants going to jail, I do NOT have to side with the letter of the law.  That's what happens when Chaotic Good people get involved with writing the Constitution.




And that's a good thing ... to a point.  Really, if all we care about is how other people feel about what we did then there really isn't much point in having written law at all.  

If she shot him during or immediately before a savage beating I'd actually be upset she was sentenced at all.  That's not what happened, though.



> I did use a qualifying term "apparently" as I cannot actually know your intent.  If you want to punish the woman who was in unusual circumstance (it's not like my wife deciding to off me for no reason), then you are also in effect choosing that she not raise her daughter.  She might actually suck at raising her daughter (she did have poor taste in men apparently), but those are variables outside the information I have.




My desire to see her punished for her crimes does not extend to anything that has to do with her daughter.  I don't necessarily want her daughter to grow up with her mother in prison but that's also not a decision I made.  Were she sentenced to prison, that would be a result of _her _actions - not mine.



> No, because they are bad.  I do not believe the woman is bad (lacking any info that she has done any other bad things).  Therefore, putting a presumably good woman who did bad but justifiable thing is not a useful punishment for her act.  As sociologists have apparently proven that stiff punishments don't disuade others from doing a crime, it seems there is little value and more harm in punishing THIS woman stiffly.
> 
> I would prefer to put actual bad people in prison.  People who will be repeat offenders or whose crime was very damaging to society.  I don't see how this woman damaged society.  She probably reduced calls to police for this bad guy and she just happened to prevent terrorism (which if she didn't know he was building a bomb, she also didn't know if he was feeling her kid up and that is VERY common).  If she's not likely to kill again or otherwise disrupt society, let's put some stuff on her record and give her time served (including time with mr. wife beater).




The thing is, it's not that she did one bad thing.  See, what she did was really bad.  She removed someone from the planet because she felt like it.  She made that decision - not some great authority.  It's not like she burnt dinner or pooped on the floor, _she killed someone_.  



> All good things.  The trap is if we get stuck in trying to be a "right fighter" as Dr. Phil would call it, or if we're just blasting the same point that nobody else cares about.  Like the jury, I think a majority here doesn't care that what she did was legally wrong.  It's an impasse.




Dr Phil?  Fo' realski, brah?  *shakes head*  

Yep, it's an impasse.  That said, there's still some fun/benefit to be had. Time to explore the peripherals - if we feel like it.



> I try to to include qualifying words like "apparently" or "appears" or some such to indicate that I think a person's position is XYZ, but to leave room for being wrong and to show I am not stating it as an absolute fact.  Deducing intent is always tricky and EN advises not assigning somebody's intent.  However, some things are logically deducible.  If you say the woman should to go to jail, then I am inclined to believe your intent is that the woman should go to jail and that you are arguing with that goal.
> 
> I do find, that if you are attempting to argue as a devil's advocate (choosing a specific side as its own exercise in debate), it helps to declare that upfront.  Otherwise, it can make discussion maddening as "we don't care that what she did was illegal, so why do you keep bringing that point up" happens.




For the record, I'm not playing devil's advocate here.  I'm actually an NRA certified firearms instructor (Basic Pistol) and that means I can run the classes that issue people CHL certificates in the state I live that they can use to get their license.  Self defense - especially lethal - is something I take very seriously.  I don't think she should get a pass because she failed to satisfy the requirements for lethal self defense.  I realize that's not why she was given her pass but it has been a fairly popular argument in justification here.



> Also remember, I suck at debate.  I might have a few points, but I am not going to successfully sway anybody.




Don't sell yourself short.  You're easy to talk to and that makes you more persuasive than anything else.  Aside from that it's pretty rare to sway anyone's mind on the intertoobz.  Just not terribly common.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Nov 8, 2013)

Zombie_Babies said:


> Me?  I'm all for equality.  If punching a dood in the face isn't enough to warrant my sleepy-time shooting then punching a woman in the face isn't either.  Women are a lot tougher than a lot of people give 'em credit for.  That's not to say that punching them is ok - it's not - but it's no worse (still bad) than punching a man.
> 
> Equality means equal in all things - not just the ones that we don't feel squicky about.
> 
> mmon.




I think punching people in the face is bad in both cases, but they are different. If my wie decided to start abusing me, i would have a pretty easy tome fending her off and a pretty easy time extricating myself from the situation. But if i were to abuse my wife, it would be very hard for her to defend herself. Certainly there are going to be instances where that isn't the case, where a woman will have no problem overpowering her husband, but the general rule of "its worse for men ti hit women" is somthing I am okay with retaining. I think a woman can playfully or even not so playfully strike a man with little long term effect. I have seen healthy couples where this occurs. However I have never seen a healthy relationship that is the reverse of that. There is a power dynamic that is just different. A man should not hit a woman. Period. I think when women ask for equality, they don't have what you are suggesting in mind.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Nov 8, 2013)

Bedrockgames said:


> I think punching people in the face is bad in both cases, but they are different. If my wie decided to start abusing me, i would have a pretty easy tome fending her off and a pretty easy time extricating myself from the situation. But if i were to abuse my wife, it would be very hard for her to defend herself. Certainly there are going to be instances where that isn't the case, where a woman will have no problem overpowering her husband, but the general rule of "its worse for men ti hit women" is somthing I am okay with retaining. I think a woman can playfully or even not so playfully strike a man with little long term effect. I have seen healthy couples where this occurs. However I have never seen a healthy relationship that is the reverse of that. There is a power dynamic that is just different. A man should not hit a woman. Period. I think when women ask for equality, they don't have what you are suggesting in mind.




Heh, you and I will have to hook up someday.  I know plenty of women that'll be able to set you straight pretty quick.  

That said, all she has to do is wait until you go to sleep and shoot you in the face, right?  Anyone can do that - man, woman, whatever.

Anyhoo, that rule was written during a time when women were considered to be lesser beings and, ironically enough, very often beaten.  Women shouldn't be seen as lesser beings in any regard.  They're not.  In five minutes I could train your wife to ruin your day (and maybe a lot longer) if you ever decided to raise a hand to her (not that you would - I'd never presume something like that).  But I meant what I said.  Equality isn't a per instance thing, it's all or nothing.  That means that even when it comes to things we may not like it still applies.  That's why itreally _is _no worse to hit a woman - presuming, of course, that it's wrong to hit anyone.  

Good, bad, whatever - equal is equal.  If it's wrong to say you can't pay a woman as much as a man it's also wrong to say it's worse to strike a woman.  It's not.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Nov 8, 2013)

Zombie_Babies said:


> Heh, you and I will have to hook up someday.  I know plenty of women that'll be able to set you straight pretty quick.
> 
> That said, all she has to do is wait until you go to sleep and shoot you in the face, right?  Anyone can do that - man, woman, whatever.
> 
> ...




We just disagree on this point, and i am not interested in turning this into a women versus men debate. I just think it is both wrong for men to hit women and different when a man strikes a woman than the other way around. Equal means we all have the same value and the same basic abilities, but it doesnt mean there are not differences between people when it comes to size, strength, etc. I am only offering this here as a way of explaining my position, not so we can start another rpg forum discussion on differences between the sexes (i would be happy to field any questions or points by pm, but am not going to offer a response to this in the thread beyond what I have below).

I did martial arts, boxing and self defense for years, and I have taught my wife and sisters what i know. There are certainly things people can do to level the playing field a bit. That said, generally speaking they are still going to be at a serious disadvantage if a guy tries to abuse them or attack them. 

While i agree its wrong to pay a woman less than a man. I still think it is worse for a guy to strike a woman. Now, you have every right to disagree, but i simply cannot share your position. It is bad to hurt people at all, but it is worse for a man to strike a woman.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Nov 8, 2013)

Zombie_Babies said:


> That said, all she has to do is wait until you go to sleep and shoot you in the face, right?  Anyone can do that - man, woman, whatever.
> .




If I were doing to her, what the guy in the case we discussed was doing to his wife and daughter, then I think that would be an understandable response from a person who feels victimized and is trying to protect their child.


----------



## Robin Hoodlum (Nov 8, 2013)

Bedrockgames said:


> It is bad to hurt people at all, but it is worse for a man to strike a woman.




Why?
What makes it worse for a man to hit a woman than a woman to hit a man?

Like ZB said, equal means "equal", not "equal except when...".

I am a firm believer in everybody is created equal, but that is the last time they are. Choices made and situations experienced make people unequal pretty quick, IMO.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Nov 8, 2013)

Robin Hoodlum said:


> Why?
> What makes it worse for a man to hit a woman than a woman to hit a man?
> 
> Like ZB said, equal means "equal", not "equal except when...".
> ...



Because of the differences I mentioned in my previous post. But like I said, I am not going to get into a deeper discussion on this subject here, simply because it comes up so much on these kinds of forums. I see a man striking a woman and a woman striking a man as acts with different moral values. Both are bad, but one is worse.


----------



## Robin Hoodlum (Nov 8, 2013)

Well, if there are differences, then that means inequality, does it not?
If you treat women a different way than men, that is treating them unequally.
Right?

Do you believe equality is a good thing?
If so, then why do you advise treating women differently from men?

I seriously do not understand you.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Nov 8, 2013)

Robin Hoodlum said:


> Well, if there are differences, then that means inequality, does it not?
> If you treat women a different way than men, that is treating them unequally.
> Right?
> 
> ...




Like I said, I am not going to debate this issue. I see a difference between a woman striking a man and a man striking a woman but believe in equality. There are power dynamics and differences that, in my mind, make it much worse for a man to strike a woman. But that is all I will say on the subject. If you wish to discuss the topic, feel free, but I am not going to participate.


----------



## Robin Hoodlum (Nov 8, 2013)

How can you believe in equality, then turn around and say it is worse for a man to hit a woman than a woman to hit a man?
How do you reconcile that?

Feel free to PM me.
We can continue the discussion that way.
Right now you are making zero sense to me.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Nov 8, 2013)

Robin Hoodlum said:


> How can you believe in equality, then turn around and say it is worse for a man to hit a woman than a woman to hit a man?
> How do you reconcile that?
> 
> Feel free to PM me.
> ...




I PM'd you with my explanation. Hopefully we can come to the conclusion that we just disagree on some core assumptions and concepts, rather than find one another incomprehensible.


----------



## Robin Hoodlum (Nov 9, 2013)

Fair enough.


----------



## Janx (Nov 9, 2013)

Zombie_Babies said:


> Heh, you and I will have to hook up someday.  I know plenty of women that'll be able to set you straight pretty quick.
> 
> That said, all she has to do is wait until you go to sleep and shoot you in the face, right?  Anyone can do that - man, woman, whatever.
> 
> ...




Bear in mind, you can train her all you want, but I am already trained and thus have the strength + training advantage.  I have no doubt you can find women who can beat me.  But conversely, I know who I can beat and why.  Plus, the kind of guys who beat their wife get the kind of wives they can beat.

Additionally, me striking you in a bar is a simple fight.  We might even go back to being friends the next night.

Me striking my wife over a period of years includes a lot more emotional baggage.  Especially if she put up with it for years.  This is the difference between Battered Wife Syndrome and a simple fight.  those women get stuck in a mindset that makes them think they can't leave and they have to take it.  Heck, cops hate showing up to domestic dispute calls because half the time they cuff the husband, the wife is on their back trying to kill them because they go freaking nuts.

NOTE: I do NOT beat my wife.  Or hit her.  EVER.   That was just an example put in the context of myself.


----------



## MJS (Nov 14, 2013)

Legal equality is one thing. An assault is an assault, and that is good.

but, equality does not mean we are the same. (I wish modern game designers understood this) Males protect females. It is a fact we are animals. Evolution is a fact. So the fact is, we have a visceral reaction to protecting females that predates even the existence of homo sapien, much less modern concepts of equality. 

It is completely possible, and normal, for a modern man, who loves women and supports gender equality, to have this deep feeling, even while culturally we are only just beginning to peel away thousands of years of oppression. I don't think the animal reaction is at odds with equality. This is far more complex than an all/nothing statement. 

And indeed I think men's denial of their animal self was/is an unfortunate byproduct of the beginnings of the equality movement. And, to bring it around to topic, those means are not justified, because they did more damage, and caused more confusion.

Generally, I think the problem with means/ends is that evil means are used to justify evil ends which are whitewashed as good. 
    Neutral means to justify good ends tend not to bother me.


----------



## airwalkrr (Nov 14, 2013)

Long thread so perhaps it has been mentioned so far, but the first successful smallpox vaccine developed by Edward Jenner was done in stark violation of modern medical efforts. He inoculated a child with cowpox to test his theory that cowpox exposure would immunize someone to smallpox. Smallpox was one of the more virulent diseases of its day and Jenner using an unwitting child as his test subject is a prospect most physicians nowadays would consider horrific. In some cases the cowpox inoculation did kill its patients, though due to shoddy medical records of the time other circumstances might have also been at work. Yet Jenner's work likely saved hundreds of thousands of lives, if not millions, with his vaccine. The cowpox-smallpox vaccine is in fact where we get the word vaccine. If it hadn't been for Jenner, not only might it have taken many more years for humans to discover how to vaccinate (germ theory wouldn't be developed for decades), but smallpox would have killed many people who survived smallpox outbreaks because they had been inoculated with cowpox. It was extremely controversial in its day, but (at the time) General George Washington ordered his troops on some occasions to receive cowpox inoculations, as even before Jenner, it had been observed (mostly by farmers) that those who had contracted cowpox were immune to smallpox. During the 18th century, war caused death more through disease than by death on the battlefield and smallpox was a major culprit. Numerous American Revolutionaries survived smallpox outbreaks that killed French, British, German, and Native American combatants during the American Revolutionary War.

That is the best example I can think of for ends justifying means. Of course medical science has advanced significantly since then to the point where we don't need to use humans as test subjects for these things to the same degree, and modern medical ethics requires permission from the patient. Nevertheless, at the time, with limited scientific medical knowledge, Jenner gambled on his patients' lives and humanity was the real winner. It is still important to remember however that Jenner was experimenting a hypothesis on human subjects, usually without their knowledge. And there were a great many medical practitioners in the day who acted the same on such hypotheses which turned out to be quite wrong. So are the means only justified when the ends are favorable?


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Nov 14, 2013)

MJS said:


> Legal equality is one thing. An assault is an assault, and that is good.
> 
> but, equality does not mean we are the same. (I wish modern game designers understood this) Males protect females. It is a fact we are animals. Evolution is a fact. So the fact is, we have a visceral reaction to protecting females that predates even the existence of homo sapien, much less modern concepts of equality.
> 
> ...




I'm sorry but all I can muster after reading this is a 'huh'?  You do understand, I hope, that men are programmed to perform a function that differs greatly from 'protect' where women are concerned.  _That's _what's natural for us.  The world we live in today is constructed to be something very different.


----------



## Kramodlog (Nov 14, 2013)

> we have a visceral reaction to protecting females



If this was really in our gene you wouldn't get domestic violence or rape. This is a myth, like maternal instincts. 

The funny thing is, rape is probably in our genes.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Nov 14, 2013)

goldomark said:


> If this was really in our gene you wouldn't get domestic violence or rape. This is a myth, like maternal instincts.
> 
> The funny thing is, rape is probably in our genes.




I had always imagined Thog and Nug met gathering flowers.  She peered under his massive brow into his dull eyes and shied away.  He met her equally dead gaze and then recaptured it with a soft 'Ugghsnghh' and an offering of a posey.

... and now you're telling me he just hit her in the head with a rock!?!?  Insanity!!


----------



## Kramodlog (Nov 14, 2013)

Have you ever read _The evolution of man or how I ate father_ by Roy Lewis (many different titles depending on editions). Very funny and insightful.

Anyway, you just summerized two of the three ways we do "courtship".


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Nov 14, 2013)

goldomark said:


> Have you ever read _The evolution of man or how I ate father_ by Roy Lewis (many different titles depending on editions). Very funny and insightful.
> 
> Anyway, you just summerized two of the three ways we do "courtship".




I have not but I shall add it to my list.  

Yeah, 'courtship' is certainly interesting.


----------



## Janx (Nov 14, 2013)

airwalkrr said:


> Long thread so perhaps it has been mentioned so far, but the first successful smallpox vaccine developed by Edward Jenner was done in stark violation of modern medical efforts. He inoculated a child with cowpox to test his theory that cowpox exposure would immunize someone to smallpox. Smallpox was one of the more virulent diseases of its day and Jenner using an unwitting child as his test subject is a prospect most physicians nowadays would consider horrific. In some cases the cowpox inoculation did kill its patients, though due to shoddy medical records of the time other circumstances might have also been at work. Yet Jenner's work likely saved hundreds of thousands of lives, if not millions, with his vaccine. The cowpox-smallpox vaccine is in fact where we get the word vaccine. If it hadn't been for Jenner, not only might it have taken many more years for humans to discover how to vaccinate (germ theory wouldn't be developed for decades), but smallpox would have killed many people who survived smallpox outbreaks because they had been inoculated with cowpox. It was extremely controversial in its day, but (at the time) General George Washington ordered his troops on some occasions to receive cowpox inoculations, as even before Jenner, it had been observed (mostly by farmers) that those who had contracted cowpox were immune to smallpox. During the 18th century, war caused death more through disease than by death on the battlefield and smallpox was a major culprit. Numerous American Revolutionaries survived smallpox outbreaks that killed French, British, German, and Native American combatants during the American Revolutionary War.
> 
> That is the best example I can think of for ends justifying means. Of course medical science has advanced significantly since then to the point where we don't need to use humans as test subjects for these things to the same degree, and modern medical ethics requires permission from the patient. Nevertheless, at the time, with limited scientific medical knowledge, Jenner gambled on his patients' lives and humanity was the real winner. It is still important to remember however that Jenner was experimenting a hypothesis on human subjects, usually without their knowledge. And there were a great many medical practitioners in the day who acted the same on such hypotheses which turned out to be quite wrong. So are the means only justified when the ends are favorable?




That was the kind of example I suspected existed.

In some ways, what Jenner did wasn't that risky, some people already kind of suspected getting sick with Cowpox was safe, and seemed to prevent getting sick with Smallpox.

He just performed a more specific test that he suspected would work.

So my "oh my gosh he used a child!" reaction is watered down by "the kid will probably be fine based on what folks like George Washington already knew"

I bet he felt he had to use a child, so he had a reasonably known medical history (less time alive to get sick with stuff he'd forgotten about).


----------



## MJS (Nov 14, 2013)

Zombie_Babies said:


> I'm sorry but all I can muster after reading this is a 'huh'?  You do understand, I hope, that men are programmed to perform a function that differs greatly from 'protect' where women are concerned.  _That's _what's natural for us.  The world we live in today is constructed to be something very different.



 perhaps this conversation is simply too nuanced for forums, as I don't know what you're talking about either


----------



## Kramodlog (Nov 14, 2013)

MJS said:


> perhaps this conversation is simply too nuanced for forums, as I don't know what you're talking about either



He is saying we aren't program to protect women, far from it.


----------



## MJS (Nov 14, 2013)

goldomark said:


> He is saying we aren't program to protect women, far from it.



Ah. Well, there's no question about it, really.  Its in our animal nature.


----------



## Kramodlog (Nov 14, 2013)

Not really.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Nov 14, 2013)

MJS said:


> perhaps this conversation is simply too nuanced for forums, as I don't know what you're talking about either




Goldo nailed the short of it.  And I think the disagreement here is what we think is actually programmed into our nature - especially our animal nature.  It's difficult to discuss without straying into topics most feel ill-suited for these boards but, basically, our animal drive is to procreate ... at all costs.  This ... it doesn't leave room for protection.  That's not exactly something that was programmed by nature to be our concern.  Societally things have somewhat changed but that's not where we're at naturally as a baseline.


----------



## MJS (Nov 14, 2013)

goldomark said:


> Not really.



Well, you're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. From insects to humans, its in there. Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny. Not all human males , nor all animal species, will have this trait in equal amounts, but there is no question that male animals protect females.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Nov 14, 2013)

MJS said:


> Well, you're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. From insects to humans, its in there. Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny. Not all human males , nor all animal species, will have this trait in equal amounts, but there is no question that male animals protect females.




Male brown bears kill cubs - male or female - in order to get the female to go into estrous again.  And then there's that whole pesky human history thing that kinda puts a crimp in your theory.  It's why I made up that cute Thog and Nug story.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Nov 14, 2013)

I don't see either side citing facts or research. Both are just asserting. Whether or not something is in nature, I don't think men should hit women.


----------



## Kramodlog (Nov 14, 2013)

MJS said:


> Well, you're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. From insects to humans, its in there. Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny. Not all human males , nor all animal species, will have this trait in equal amounts, but there is no question that male animals protect females.



Get back to me when you have those facts you say are missing from my posts. For now, this is just your opinion that goes against what we observe in nature and human behavior.


----------



## tomBitonti (Nov 15, 2013)

Janx said:


> That was the kind of example I suspected existed.
> 
> In some ways, what Jenner did wasn't that risky, some people already kind of suspected getting sick with Cowpox was safe, and seemed to prevent getting sick with Smallpox.
> 
> ...




Very interesting example.

This is what I found as additional detail (just a little more):



			
				http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1200696/ said:
			
		

> While Jenner's interest in the protective effects of cowpox began during his apprenticeship with George Harwicke, it was 1796 before he made the first step in the long process whereby smallpox, the scourge of mankind, would be totally eradicated. For many years, he had heard the tales that dairymaids were protected from smallpox naturally after having suffered from cowpox. Pondering this, Jenner concluded that cowpox not only protected against smallpox but also could be transmitted from one person to another as a deliberate mechanism of protection. In May 1796, Edward Jenner found a young dairymaid, Sarah Nelms, who had fresh cowpox lesions on her hands and arms (Figure ​(Figure33). On May 14, 1796, using matter from Nelms' lesions, he inoculated an 8-year-old boy, James Phipps. Subsequently, the boy developed mild fever and discomfort in the axillae. Nine days after the procedure he felt cold and had lost his appetite, but on the next day he was much better. In July 1796, Jenner inoculated the boy again, this time with matter from a fresh smallpox lesion. No disease developed, and Jenner concluded that protection was complete (10).




Something to keep in mind is the perspective on children at the time.  While the exact percentage should be viewed carefully, consider:



			
				http://www.understandingyourancestors.com/wea/death.aspx said:
			
		

> High infant mortality rates plagued communities throughout Europe until the beginning of the twentieth century. Even in the middle of the 1800s, a quarter of all babies born in many European countries died before their first birthday. At the start of the nineteenth century in France, less than one half of children lived to be ten years old. In Sweden as a whole, the infant mortality rate in the late 1700s was about twenty percent.




My understanding is that children were rather undervalued compared with modern perspectives.  Then, there would be considerably less outrage over the use of a child in the fashion indicated by Jenner.  I would say, especially if there were a substantial class difference.

That is to say, we should be very careful when considering examples to understand value differences between us and the people in the example.

Thx!

TomB


----------



## airwalkrr (Nov 16, 2013)

What I find particularly notable about the smallpox example is not so much that Jenner used a child for his experiment. It was well-understood at the time that healthy young children were more likely to survive smallpox than someone in their 20s or 30s. In the modern age we have come to learn that children have generally stronger immune systems than adults when challenged with a new invasive organism, optimally between the ages of around 5 and 13. And even in the modern age we test medical procedures on children, though only when their parents understand the risks, and usually only on sick children who might otherwise die. So that part is actually fairly understandable. The more serious breach of medical ethics in my opinion is the use of a healthy individual for a medical experiment without their knowledge, a practice which continued well into the mid-20th century.


----------



## MJS (Nov 17, 2013)

goldomark said:


> Get back to me when you have those facts you say are missing from my posts. For now, this is just your opinion that goes against what we observe in nature and human behavior.



 in birds:   http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.23...&uid=2&uid=4&uid=83&uid=63&sid=21102949675891

in insects:  https://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822(11)00959-6

in apes: https://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822(11)00959-6

   In other words, it happens - constantly, in nature. Not exactly chivalry, but chivalry is not my point. When a man says he has a deep-rooted feeling of protecting women, it is evolutionarily based, and I think, something to be preserved even as we tear down our cultural biases. Not all men have to share this instinct for it to be real, as there are different roles male animals express.
   What your opinion suggests is that our natural tendency to protect females/nest is somehow "wrong", even to the point of denying its factual existence - perhaps because you yourself do not have this urge, and see it as a cultural problem. 
   For instance, a man taking the road side, or wanting to, when walking with a woman. Is that nature or culture? I say mostly the former, and point to evolution. You might point to men not giving women priority on a lifeboat. 
   How all of these things can be true at once is hard to fathom. I don't think you and I need be at odds on the issue, and it seems to me what matters is self-awareness in any case. I might say to my feminist beloved, "thousands of years of evolution are making me want to walk on the inside of the sidewalk", and we might laugh about it, and she may even honor / witness that feeling as authentic, similar to how she likes my animal reaction to her emerging for a night out, and I'd exclaim "god DAMN!" at how nice she looks.


----------



## Kramodlog (Nov 17, 2013)

MJS said:


> in birds:   http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.23...&uid=2&uid=4&uid=83&uid=63&sid=21102949675891
> 
> in insects:  https://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822(11)00959-6
> 
> in apes: https://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822(11)00959-6



No evidence for humans, what a surprised. Funny how apes often kill the babies of female apes or that some orang-outangs commit rape or that divorce (and being forced to pay a pension) are so common. It seems the common thread is spreading genetic material. The question is, are these strategies genetic or cultural (young ape saw older ape act, does the same, pays off, cultural trait is passed on).



> When a man says he has a deep-rooted feeling of protecting women, it is evolutionarily based,



 In your opinion. It certainly can be cultural too. Women beater, rapist, murderers or just divorcers are rather common. Are they common enough to also be genetic, in your opinion? I'm curious.



> and I think, something to be preserved even as we tear down our cultural biases. Not all men have to share this instinct for it to be real, as there are different roles male animals express.



You still need to prove it is an instinct of males. So far it is just your opinion, you haven't proven that these aren't manifestations of culture. 

[quoe]What your opinion suggests is that our natural tendency to protect females/nest is somehow "wrong",[/quote]I didn't pass any judgment, I'm interesting in facts, not opinions. From your comment it seems you are the one passing judgement on me. 

What I'm saying is we do not have a need to protect women or kids. Rape, other types of violence, divorce, two timing (hurting emotionally), all sort universal behavior of men show otherwise. 



> even to the point of denying its factual existence -



You haven't shown any evidence this behavior is genetic in nature, do not misrepresent what I said.



> perhaps because you yourself do not have this urge, and see it as a cultural problem.



See, you are the one judging me and taking a swipe at me. Amusing.  



> For instance, a man taking the road side, or wanting to, when walking with a woman. Is that nature or culture? I say mostly the former, and point to evolution.



Of course, we have evolved with the dangers of cars running over us for millions of years. 



> You might point to men not giving women priority on a lifeboat.



Or rape and other forms of violence. Two timing, divorce, abandonning your family, etc...



> How all of these things can be true at once is hard to fathom.



Maybe for you... 



> I don't think you and I need be at odds on the issue,



Yes we do. I cannot support people who think their opinions are fact. Especially baseless and mostly sexist ones. I'm sure you think that women have a maternal instinct. Surprise, they do not have one as far as it has been observed. It is not just infanticide committed by some women, but how they do not suddenly become all motherly and protective of their new born. Some do, but is it just that they are more prepared mentally (culture) to take on that new role, rather than a gene kicking in?



> and it seems to me what matters is self-awareness in any case.



Have you considered that you are not aware of all your cultural biases? Or that you refuse to awknowledge them by rationalizing them?



> I might say to my feminist beloved, "thousands of years of evolution are making me want to walk on the inside of the sidewalk", and we might laugh about it, and she may even honor / witness that feeling as authentic, similar to how she likes my animal reaction to her emerging for a night out, and I'd exclaim "god DAMN!" at how nice she looks.



/snickers


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Nov 18, 2013)

Sure, if we _only _consider the lovey-dovey stuff then it would seem as though there's some protective instinct.  I believe, however, that there are enough men in prison today for violent acts against women to counter any of the nice crap - especially considering that walking on the right side of the sidewalk kinda pales when compared with murder.  And consider this: Only recently has it become illegal to hit a woman.  Some folks still don't consider rape that occurs in a marriage to be rape.  How's that for protective?

For the record, I've never struck a woman outside the confines of a martial arts class.  I also open doors and all that crap.  Why?  Cuz I was _taught _that stuff.  Guess what I don't do: Walk on the inside of the sidewalks.  Know why?  Nobody ever taught me that one.

Also please try to keep in mind that kids mimic adults.  If we see daddy acting all protective then that's what we may well end up doing.  Acting protective toward women, then, is _learned_ and not our default action.


----------



## EscherEnigma (Nov 19, 2013)

As long as we're dishing out "evidence", I'd like to remind the audience that men are most likely to be assaulted/abused/killed by strange men.  Women are most likely to be assaulted/abused/killed by known men.

But quite simply, the "problem" is that there are two competing reproduction strategies.  There's the " 'em all" strategy (the man asking for leniency from a judge because he needs to pay child support to eight women for twelve kids).  And there's the "one and only" strategy (the "family man" who devotes all his time and resources to one family).  Both are undeniably human, but this is one of those "it's all on a bell curve" deals.

That said, why the need to establish chivalry as some sort of genetic predisposition?  So that you don't "feel bad" about not agreeing with "if hitting women is bad, hitting men is equally bad"?  I got an easy out for that right here: the "don't hit women" rules is a rule-of-thumb simplification of the "don't pick on the weaker" rule as that's way the bell curves work out.  Rules of thumb are fine, but don't mistake them for straight jackets and don't forget what they're derived from.


----------



## MJS (Nov 19, 2013)

goldomark said:


> No evidence for humans, what a surprised. Funny how apes often kill the babies of female apes or that some orang-outangs commit rape or that divorce (and being forced to pay a pension) are so common. It seems the common thread is spreading genetic material. The question is, are these strategies genetic or cultural (young ape saw older ape act, does the same, pays off, cultural trait is passed on).
> 
> In your opinion. It certainly can be cultural too. Women beater, rapist, murderers or just divorcers are rather common. Are they common enough to also be genetic, in your opinion? I'm curious.
> 
> ...



  The facts here speak for themselves, and the evidence, which you would prefer to ignore, is overwhelming. I am not here to teach you or convince you, its not my job. Feminists I know agree with me. There is an animal nature at work, that has a complex relation to cultural biases, but is not the same as them. 
    Yes, males attack and kill babies; others defend nests. I am suggesting there is room for both of these things to be true. Truth isn't black and white. Thats about all I care to engage in this with you. Research it on your own time.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Nov 19, 2013)

MJS said:


> The facts here speak for themselves, and the evidence, which you would prefer to ignore, is overwhelming. I am not here to teach you or convince you, its not my job. Feminists I know agree with me. There is an animal nature at work, that has a complex relation to cultural biases, but is not the same as them.
> Yes, males attack and kill babies; others defend nests. I am suggesting there is room for both of these things to be true. Truth isn't black and white. Thats about all I care to engage in this with you. Research it on your own time.




Whoa there, ace, I don't think anyone is ignoring 'evidence' that males want to protect females.  Hell, we've had more than one gallant White Knight show up in this very thread.  If anything is being ignored it's our history (only recently, all things considered, that beating your wife was made illegal, some still think rape that occurs in marriage isn't rape, etc) and the fact that prisons are full of men who beat or kill women.  I haven't seen any reason whatsoever given that I should forget about all of that and just say 'yeah, it's totes in our nature to protect women'.  Address that stuff and we can really start to talk.  Until then it's just you telling us what you think is a fact without even stopping to consider the counter evidence we've presented.

Let's talk about how men in the military respond to women who claim they've been raped.

There's one.  Tell me how that's evidence of our natural protective instinct.  When we get done with that, we can move on to something else.


----------



## MJS (Nov 19, 2013)

Zombie_Babies said:


> Whoa there, ace, I don't think anyone is ignoring 'evidence' that males want to protect females.  Hell, we've had more than one gallant White Knight show up in this very thread.  If anything is being ignored it's our history (only recently, all things considered, that beating your wife was made illegal, some still think rape that occurs in marriage isn't rape, etc) and the fact that prisons are full of men who beat or kill women.  I haven't seen any reason whatsoever given that I should forget about all of that and just say 'yeah, it's totes in our nature to protect women'.  Address that stuff and we can really start to talk.  Until then it's just you telling us what you think is a fact without even stopping to consider the counter evidence we've presented.
> 
> Let's talk about how men in the military respond to women who claim they've been raped.
> 
> There's one.  Tell me how that's evidence of our natural protective instinct.  When we get done with that, we can move on to something else.



 i have addressed this more than once, again, truth is not point A disproving point B, it is an organic thing. Lemming syndrome is a powerful factor, Cover Your Ass syndrome is in every corporation (and military)
   I am saying that, in nature, as in humans, we have a stark contradiction apparently. There is no question that males protect females; nor is this universally true. The fact that we document this protection in animals shows it to be deeply rooted. So, when a man says, in a thread like this, that his protective feeling towards women is not sexism, we might consider respecting that as part of this truth, rather than seek to attack it as a binary thing.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Nov 19, 2013)

MJS said:


> i have addressed this more than once, again, truth is not point A disproving point B, it is an organic thing. Lemming syndrome is a powerful factor, Cover Your Ass syndrome is in every corporation (and military)
> I am saying that, in nature, as in humans, we have a stark contradiction apparently. There is no question that males protect females; nor is this universally true.



Are you suggesting that the reason males protect females is because the female is a female and nothing more?


> The fact that we document this protection in animals shows it to be deeply rooted. So, when a man says, in a thread like this, that his protective feeling towards women is not sexism,



Shouldn't that depend on the reason for these protective feelings towards women? I mean, I could claim that my reasons to be protective of women aren't sexist;; however, I feel protective of women because I believe they are weaker, both physically, and mentally, and their role is to bare children and do as the man says, while a males role is to be the head of the household, be the provider, and protector of the weaker sex. In other words, just because I claim something, doesn't mean my claim is true.


----------



## Kramodlog (Nov 19, 2013)

MJS said:


> The facts here speak for themselves, and the evidence, which you would prefer to ignore, is overwhelming.



I didn't ignore it, you seem to ignore the evidence I provide. I also proposed an alternative explication for the ape's behavior. A cultural one that you also ignore. So far what you call facts are just your opinion and feelings. 



> I am not here to teach you or convince you, its not my job. Feminists I know agree with me.



And those I know disagree. This is just an appeal to an authority.  



> There is an animal nature at work, that has a complex relation to cultural biases, but is not the same as them.



But you haven't demonstrated the it is genetic, you simply affirm it. You walking on the side of the road example is cute, but is not genetic evidence and can be easily explain by cultural influences. 



> Yes, males attack and kill babies; others defend nests. I am suggesting there is room for both of these things to be true. Truth isn't black and white. Thats about all I care to engage in this with you. Research it on your own time.



But do you know why they kill babies or will protect a baby? Are you familiar with the selfish gene concept?



MJS said:


> i have addressed this more than once, again, truth is not point A disproving point B, it is an organic thing. Lemming syndrome is a powerful factor, Cover Your Ass syndrome is in every corporation (and military)
> I am saying that, in nature, as in humans, we have a stark contradiction apparently. There is no question that males protect females; nor is this universally true. The fact that we document this protection in animals shows it to be deeply rooted. So, when a man says, in a thread like this, that his protective feeling towards women is not sexism, we might consider respecting that as part of this truth, rather than seek to attack it as a binary thing.



So basically you are saying we should consider what you say to be true because you say it and we shouldn't question it? 

Sounds paternalistic, a bit like this how men are genetically programmed to protect women. If at least you said men wanna maximize the chance to dissiminate their genetic material, now you'd be on to something.


----------



## EscherEnigma (Nov 20, 2013)

MJS said:


> So, when a man says [...] that his protective feeling towards women is not sexism [...]



Then we tell him he doesn't full understand the word he's using.

Whether something is "sexist" or not says nothing about it's origins (cultural or biological) or morality (for good or ill).  It simply speaks to treating things differently based on perceived sex and gender.  So even if you can justify an attitude as biologically or genetically determined (or more likely strongly influenced) that doesn't give you a "totally not sexist" card.  It just means you have a reason to point to.

Now, whether it's _moral_ is an entirely different discussion from whether it's _biological_.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Nov 21, 2013)

MJS said:


> i have addressed this more than once, again, truth is not point A disproving point B, it is an organic thing. Lemming syndrome is a powerful factor, Cover Your Ass syndrome is in every corporation (and military)
> I am saying that, in nature, as in humans, we have a stark contradiction apparently. There is no question that males protect females; nor is this universally true. The fact that we document this protection in animals shows it to be deeply rooted. So, when a man says, in a thread like this, that his protective feeling towards women is not sexism, we might consider respecting that as part of this truth, rather than seek to attack it as a binary thing.




Again, we document far different behavior in animals, too.  Hell, I once saw a duck rape another duck right in front of its mate.  One was protecting and the other was rapacious.  Which was the one behaving naturally?

As for the sexist stuff, treating a woman differently than you treat a man simply because she is a woman _is _sexist whether you like it or not.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Nov 21, 2013)

Zombie_Babies said:


> As for the sexist stuff, treating a woman differently than you treat a man simply because she is a woman _is _sexist whether you like it or not.




Whether something is natural or not doesn't really illuminate whether it is moral, so I think arguments over whether men are naturally protective of women get us no where and take things beyond the simple principle of it is wrong for a man to hit a woman.

on the 'is it sexist front', all i can say is i am a man, so i decided to ask female friends of mine who are feminists (women who are very much active feminists who studied it in college or are out there trying to change things for the better) and i asked them specifically about this issue of whether its sexist to say men should not hit women and that there is a difference between a man striking another man and a man striking a woman. The response i got across the board was they agreed it is worse for men to strike womn and that this is a principle we shouldn't toss away lightly. They didn't see it as sexist because man on woman violence is something that perpetuates sexist power structures in place. Man on man violence dosnt perpetuate those power structures though it is still bad in its own way (these are their words, not mine). I am sure there are also feminists out there who disagree, but something about the argument bein pg made here (that men and women are equal so we shouldnt treat men punching women differently than women punching men or men punching men) feels like it is mysogynistic juijitsi, a kind of "mens's rights" movement rhetorical tactic of throwing "equality" back in the faces of feminists.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Nov 21, 2013)

EscherEnigma said:


> Then we tell him he doesn't full understand the word he's using.
> 
> Whether something is "sexist" or not says nothing about it's origins (cultural or biological) or morality (for good or ill).  It simply speaks to treating things differently based on perceived sex and gender.  So even if you can justify an attitude as biologically or genetically determined (or more likely strongly influenced) that doesn't give you a "totally not sexist" card.  It just means you have a reason to point to.
> 
> Now, whether it's _moral_ is an entirely different discussion from whether it's _biological_.




i am no expert on feminism or sexism, but is this true? When i looked up the word sexist, it said it was prejudice or discrimination based on sex, or viewing someone as inferior because of their sex. I agree that can clearly include treating people differently based on their gender, but it also seems to there are issues, like domestic violence where women are the victims of male abusers, where you have to treat the situation differently than the reverse in order to address existing sexism in the culture. I am sure some guys do get battered by their women, but i doubt they are at nearly as much risk when they try to leave than women are, and i think because women still have less power in our society it makes the situation different than if it is the man being abused. On top of that, men tend to be larger than women (on average, and there are definitely plenty of exceptions) and i thinkt hey are more culturally pressured to acquire combat skills and do things like lift weights. So i think when you take the problem as a whole, you have to treat man on woman violence differently than woman on man violence.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Nov 21, 2013)

Bedrockgames said:


> i am no expert on feminism or sexism, but is this true? When i looked up the word sexist, it said it was prejudice or discrimination based on sex, or viewing someone as inferior because of their sex. I agree that can clearly include treating people differently based on their gender, but it also seems to there are issues, like domestic violence where women are the victims of male abusers, where you have to treat the situation differently than the reverse in order to address existing sexism in the culture. I am sure some guys do get battered by their women, but* i doubt they are at nearly as much risk when they try to leave than women are*, and i think because women still have less power in our society it makes the situation different than if it is the man being abused. On top of that, men tend to be larger than women (on average, and there are definitely plenty of exceptions) and i thinkt hey are more culturally pressured to acquire combat skills and do things like lift weights. So i think when you take the problem as a whole, *you have to treat man on woman violence differently than woman on man violence.*



That is actually completely wrong. Women can be just as abusive, and dangerous, as men. Furthermore, because of people like you, who think this way, cases of men being abused are severely underreported. You stigmatize abused men and they end up feeling shame because how could they explain being abused or afraid of a woman? Your way of thinking further hurts men in abusive relationships.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Nov 21, 2013)

I never said women don't abuse men or can't be as dangerous.  I am sure some men who leave their wives are at great risk but on the whole I think the situation is more dangerous for women. I am sorry but I think men hitting women is a much bigger problem and usually more serious than the reverse. Doesn't mean men should feel ashamed if they are abused but we should focus more of our resources on the former IMO, and we should emphasize that its wrong for a man to strike a woman.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Nov 21, 2013)

Bedrockgames said:


> I never said women don't abuse men. I am sure some men who leave their wives are at great risk but on the whole *I think the situation is more dangerous for women. *I am sorry but I think men hitting women is a much bigger problem and usually more serious than the reverse. Doesn't mean men should feel ashamed if they are abused but *we should focus more of our resources on the former IMO*, and we should emphasize that its wrong for a man to strike a woman



I know what you said. The problem is what you think. People like you don't realize that by saying that men abusing women is worse, or should be taken more seriously, or more resources should be spent on men abusing women, you are making the situation worse for men. When a man does report abuse, it isn't taken seriously, or as serious, as when a woman reports abuse. They are not protected the same way that a woman would be. Thus they may be left in a abusive situation, which can become worse after they have tried to seek help. Furthermore, you are making it less likely that they will report any future abuse in the future because having done so in the past resulted in minimal, if any at all, punishment for the abuser. 

And if you think that size or strength matters because men are bigger or stronger and thus can be more dangerous, remember, guns are a great equalizer. You get shot, it doesn't matter if it's a man or a woman shooting you. 

Also, abuse doesn't have to be physical for it to be abuse.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Nov 21, 2013)

Well, we obviously just disagree.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Nov 21, 2013)

Bedrockgames said:


> Well, we obviously just disagree.



Obviously, but the important part is that I'm still right.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Nov 21, 2013)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Obviously, but the important part is that I'm still right.




You can assert that all you want, but it doesn't make it so. I am happy to have a conversation with you about a topic on which we disagree. I am not going to have a heated argument online with someone who simply insists they are right.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Nov 21, 2013)

Bedrockgames said:


> You can assert that all you want, but it doesn't make it so.



No, but my advanced degrees, professional experience, research experience, as well as all the other goodies I've accumulated over the years does.


> I am happy to have a conversation with you about a topic on which we disagree.



We've been having a discussion; however, you appear dead set against acknowledging that giving preferential treatment to a particular group of people (women) is detrimental to another group (men). This may be due to you not wanting to contemplate the possibility that you have some sexist views.


> I am not going to have a heated argument online with someone who simply insists they are right.



Why would it get heated? I am perfectly able to control my temper, aren't you?


----------



## Umbran (Nov 21, 2013)

I think there's a clear indication that neither of you is going to be convinced by the other.  So, please let it be, gents.  Thank you.


----------



## Kramodlog (Nov 21, 2013)

Bedrockgames said:


> They didn't see it as sexist because man on woman violence is something that perpetuates sexist power structures in place. Man on man violence dosnt perpetuate those power structures though it is still bad in its own way (these are their words, not mine).



Men do not use violence to get dominance over other men?



> I am sure there are also feminists out there who disagree, but something about the argument bein pg made here (that men and women are equal so we shouldnt treat men punching women differently than women punching men or men punching men) feels like it is mysogynistic juijitsi, a kind of "mens's rights" movement rhetorical tactic of throwing "equality" back in the faces of feminists.



Honestly, seeing women as more vulnerable and needing more help seems to be sexist by itself.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Nov 21, 2013)

goldomark said:


> Men do not use violence to get dominance over other men?




yes, but that doesn't perpetuate sexist power structures (at least that is was my feminist friends reasoning)



> Honestly, seeing women as more vulnerable and needing more help seems to be sexist by itself.




i am saying they disportionately affected by domestic violence from men, more impacted by it because of existing inequalities in the culture, and more likely to be victims of it because if cultural influences in our society. I am also saying that the general physical differences (both the average size and strength advantage if men and the ones that result from cultural pressures) mean we need to emphasize to men its not pkay for them to hit women.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Nov 21, 2013)

Umbran said:


> I think there's a clear indication that neither of you is going to be convinced by the other.  So, please let it be, gents.  Thank you.




Sorry umbran. I didn't mean to drag this out so much. I will stop posting on the subject.


----------



## Kramodlog (Nov 21, 2013)

Bedrockgames said:


> yes, but that doesn't perpetuate sexist power structures (at least that is was my feminist friends reasoning)



But aren't all power strutures backed by violence problematic, no matter the gender involved? What feminist did is show that women were abused, but it doesn't make their abuse more important. Quantitatively it is more important, because women represent like 52% of the population, but qualitatively, there isn't any diffence.




> i am saying they disportionately affected by domestic violence from men, more impacted by it because of existing inequalities in the culture, and more likely to be victims of it because if cultural influences in our society. I am also saying that the general physical differences (both the average size and strength advantage if men and the ones that result from cultural pressures) mean we need to emphasize to men its not pkay for them to hit women.



Why not emphasize that physical and psychological abuse is not okay, period? Both gender (and other genders) are victims of it.


----------



## tomBitonti (Nov 21, 2013)

goldomark said:


> Why not emphasize that physical and psychological abuse is not okay, period? Both gender (and other genders) are victims of it.




There are issues with allowances for men to be passive and non-physical, at least in western societies.  That is, a guy who doesn't fight back tends to not get sympathy or support.  There is also a lot of push back against the idea of woman on man sexual abuse.

That is to say, I don't think that many would disagree with physical and psychological abuse being bad, but different expectations for men and women interfere with the problem.

Thx!

TomB


----------



## Kramodlog (Nov 21, 2013)

tomBitonti said:


> There are issues with allowances for men to be passive and non-physical, at least in western societies.  That is, a guy who doesn't fight back tends to not get sympathy or support.  There is also a lot of push back against the idea of woman on man sexual abuse.
> 
> That is to say, I don't think that many would disagree with physical and psychological abuse being bad, but different expectations for men and women interfere with the problem.
> 
> ...



Why tolerate these expectations in the first place?


----------



## MJS (Nov 21, 2013)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> In other words, just because I claim something, doesn't mean my claim is true.



 it is true that male animals - which humans are - exhibit a protective behavior. I think you and others are looking for an absolute truth here that doesn't exist. What I have outlined is a part of it.



goldomark said:


> So basically you are saying we should consider what you say to be true because you say it and we shouldn't  question it?.



 In your case, yes. And, maybe loosen the helmet a bit. 
   Increasing mating chances is where my whole point goes. As I said before, it's not about chivalry per se. Bu you wanted to argue that male animals have no protective instinct, and I'm done talking to you about it. 



EscherEnigma said:


> Then we tell him he doesn't full understand the word he's using.



 I'm not sure that you do either. A biologically ingrained pattern is different from idiotic religious and cultural factors. That's what I was on about, but its become a game of prove/disprove, not a wholistic discussion.



Zombie_Babies said:


> As for the sexist stuff, treating a woman differently than you treat a man simply because she is a woman _is _sexist whether you like it or not.



 no, I don't think it is. By that definition, the only non-sexists are bisexuals. 
   Sorry about the duck rape. You will never really be able to un-see it.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Nov 21, 2013)

MJS said:


> it is true that male animals - which humans are - *exhibit a protective behavior*. I think you and others are looking for an absolute truth here that doesn't exist. What I have outlined is a part of it.



It's funny that you say we are looking for an absolute truth when you make a claim that humans exhibit protective behavior. Humans, as any other organisms, exhibit behaviors. You, however, are attributing a protective quality to the behavior. You're doing exactly what you are accusing others of doing. That's bad form. 

The other problem is that it appear that you are saying that "males" are protective of females. Are you suggesting that males are protective of females because they are females?


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Nov 21, 2013)

MJS said:


> no, I don't think it is. By that definition, *the only non-sexists are bisexuals*.
> Sorry about the duck rape. You will never really be able to un-see it.



That makes absolutely no sense at all.


----------



## EscherEnigma (Nov 22, 2013)

Bedrockgames said:


> yes, but that doesn't perpetuate sexist power structures (at least that is was my feminist friends reasoning)



... please, tell me more about how butch men beating up girly men, because they're girly and not butch, doesn't perpetuate sexist power structures.  I'm deeply interested in your thoughts.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Nov 22, 2013)

EscherEnigma said:


> ... please, tell me more about how butch men beating up girly men, because they're girly and not butch, doesn't perpetuate sexist power structures.  I'm deeply interested in your thoughts.




Sorry Escher I am not posting on this subject anymore (see above).


----------



## EscherEnigma (Nov 22, 2013)

> m not sure that you do either. A biologically ingrained pattern is  different from idiotic religious and cultural factors. That's what I was  on about, but its become a game of prove/disprove, not a wholistic  discussion.



Again, why are you conflating the _cause_ or _reason_ with the _behavior differences_?  When identifying sexism, racism, and all the other *isms don't care about _why_ the difference in standards and treatment is happening, you simply identify the difference.  And then later you go in and say "okay, why did this happen" and you can decide if it's a morally acceptable case of discrimination or not.

For example...



MJS said:


> no, I don't think it is. By that definition, the only non-sexists are bisexuals.



When it comes to mate-selection?  Yep.

However, that's a morally acceptable case of sexism.  But it is still sexism.  The only reason this is controversial is because knee-jerk reactions to terms that people don't understand.  Underwear is also pretty sexist.  As are different trianing regimines at the gym for women vs. men.  And nutritional requirements for women vs. men.  Different recommendations for sungliht exposure for Irish vs. Nigerians is racist.

You really need to understand that just because something is an *ism or *ist doesn't necessarily mean it's _bad_.  Yes, the ones you normally hear about _are_, but that's because no one is really going to care that beard trimmers are targeted almost exclusively towards men.  Which quite clearly falls into the "morally acceptable sexism" category.


----------



## Umbran (Nov 22, 2013)

EscherEnigma said:


> A
> Underwear is also pretty sexist.  As are different trianing regimines at the gym for women vs. men.  And nutritional requirements for women vs. men.  Different recommendations for sungliht exposure for Irish vs. Nigerians is racist.




Yes, and no.  Beware of committing the logical fallacy of Equivocation - switching the meaning of a word mid-stream.

Sexism has two definitions:  1) Prejudice or discrimination between sexes and 2) placing a value judgement on one sex or the other.

Now, with underwear, one may "discriminate" (technically meaning "differentiate") between the sexes because the bodies are demonstrably physically different - the clothing may need to be cut differently to fit.  Most men simply don't need brassier, but many women do for their comfort.  There is no judgement of value attached to this.  

However, if most of the underwear for sale for women is designed for sex appeal rather than comfort, and the men's stuff is designed purely for function, there are value judgements being implied.



> You really need to understand that just because something is an *ism or *ist doesn't necessarily mean it's _bad_.




This is where the equivocation steps in.  You're sticking to outmoded language use.  In current use, the -ism really is about the bad forms of differentiation.  Don't expect others to stick by your use, when it isn't the common one at this time.  Sorry, but you don't get to swap the meaning out from under them, just because it is one you can technically get from a dictionary.


----------



## EscherEnigma (Nov 22, 2013)

... if you think I changed definitions mid-stream, that's projection on your part, no error on mine.


----------



## Kramodlog (Nov 22, 2013)

MJS said:


> In your case, yes. And, maybe loosen the helmet a bit.



This is funny.



> Increasing mating chances is where my whole point goes. As I said before, it's not about chivalry per se. Bu you wanted to argue that male animals have no protective instinct, and I'm done talking to you about it.



I'm arguing that human males wanting to maximize the dissemination of genetic material is probably genetic, it is less clear if the strategy used (e.g. rape, courtship) is genetic or not. I do not hold the Truth(TM).


----------



## Umbran (Nov 22, 2013)

EscherEnigma said:


> ... if you think I changed definitions mid-stream, that's projection on your part, no error on mine.




Dude, relax.  I merely suggested you made an error.  

If everyone else is already using a word, and you try to change to using a different definition in the middle of the conversation, that's not projection on my part.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Nov 22, 2013)

Umbran said:


> Dude, relax.  I merely suggested you made an error.
> 
> If everyone else is already using a word, and you try to change to using a different definition in the middle of the conversation, that's not projection on my part.



Seems you don't understand what he means when he says that it's protecting in your part.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Nov 22, 2013)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Seems you don't understand what he means when he says that it's protecting in your part.




He isn't projecting. EE is in fact equivocating by using the term sexism differently than how it is meant by posters here, but also different from how the broader public uses the term.


----------



## Robin Hoodlum (Nov 22, 2013)

Where's the EN World dictionary?
Perhaps if we had a link to that, we could all use the definitions that are approved.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Nov 22, 2013)

Bedrockgames said:


> He isn't projecting. EE is in fact equivocating by using the term sexism differently than how it is meant by posters here, but also different from how the broader public uses the term.




You're making an assumption about how every person here is using the word sexism. Umbran have two definitions. Some members may be using one or the other. Side members maybe using both. 

Don't assume you know how someone else is using a word. It leads to you making completely incorrect statements about others. 

Also, I thought you had stopped participating? Does your post mean we can continue our discussion?


----------



## Bedrockgames (Nov 22, 2013)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> You're making an assumption about how every person here is using the word sexism. Umbran have two definitions. Some members may be using one or the other. Side members maybe using both.
> 
> Don't assume you know how someone else is using a word. It leads to you making completely incorrect statements about others.
> 
> Also, I thought you had stopped participating? Does your post mean we can continue our discussion?




your right, i bowed out because you and I had reached a point where we couldn't just agree to disagree. That is because we both got a light warning from Umbran, i have no interest in getting an official warning or ban, so would rather you and I not continue our discussion.

needless to say, it seems we also disagree over the semantics if the debate at hand.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Nov 23, 2013)

Bedrockgames said:


> your right, i bowed out because you and I had reached a point where we couldn't just agree to disagree. That is because we both got a light warning from Umbran, i have no interest in getting an official warning or ban, so would rather you and I not continue our discussion.



 It wasn't just our conversation you retreated from. You also refused to respond to bone_naga. In any case, meh, whatever. 


> needless to say, it seems we also disagree over the semantics if the debate at hand.



I get the feeling you didn't read my post. I said that making assumptions about what definition a particular person is wrong. Don't make assumptions and then argue against those assumptions, which are more than likely wrong. Go back and read the post. Reread it if you have to. Don't assume I disagree with your on "semantics." Instead, you might find it useful to ask questions.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Nov 23, 2013)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> It wasn't just our conversation you retreated from. You also refused to respond to bone_naga. In any case, meh, whatever.




you can characterize it however you like: retreat, refusal to respond, etc. I don't come gere to fight or argue. I come here for discussions and am fine getting into a bit and back forth when i disagree with someone about something that interests me. As for bone_naga, perhaps i refused to respond to a post by that person. I don't really remember though so can't really say much about it. 



> I get the feeling you didn't read my post. s.




I read your post.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Nov 23, 2013)

Bedrockgames said:


> you can characterize it however you like: retreat, refusal to respond, etc. I don't come gere to fight or argue. I come here for discussions and am fine getting into a bit and back forth when i disagree with someone about something that interests me. As for bone_naga, perhaps i refused to respond to a post by that person. I don't really remember though so can't really say much about it.
> 
> 
> 
> I read your post.



BN's post and your response is somewhere in the last few pages. You can look it up if you want. I would have linked it for you, but I'm out and posting from my phone, and it isn't worth the hassle. Anyways, as I said before, meh, whatever. I would have liked to continue our discussion, but if you don't, it doesn't really matter. It's an internet discussion. It's about as useful And productive as an online petition.

As for my post, if you read it, are you sure you understood it? You argued against something I didn't say, so it makes me wonder. Seriously, you can ask questions. I don't mind. I can answer them for you to clear up anything you didn't understand. Its a good way to avoid making assumptions.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Nov 23, 2013)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> BN's post and your response is somewhere in the last few pages. You can look it up if you want. I would have linked it for you, but I'm out and posting from my phone, and it isn't worth the hassle. Anyways, as I said before, meh, whatever. I would have liked to continue our discussion, but if you don't, it doesn't really matter. It's an internet discussion. It's about as useful And productive as an online petition.




we were asked to not continue that line of debate by a mod. 



> As for my post, if you read it, are you sure you understood it? You argued against something I didn't say, so it makes me wonder. Seriously, you can ask questions. I don't mind. I can answer them for you to clear up anything you didn't understand. Its a good way to avoid making assumptions.




i read, re-read, and triple-read your post. It still seems to be we disagree on the semanics of the debate. That is fine, you and I don't have to agree on that.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Nov 23, 2013)

Bedrockgames said:


> we were asked to not continue that line of debate by a mod.
> 
> 
> 
> i read, re-read, and triple-read your post. It still seems to be we disagree on the semanics of the debate. That is fine, you and I don't have to agree on that.



So instead of asking me a question to clarify things, you insist on continuing to make assumptions?  Why? What are you so afraid would happen if you ask a question?


----------

