Lisa Montgomery
- Brian Peacock
- Tipping cows since 1946
- Posts: 38180
- Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:44 am
- About me: Ablate me:
- Location: Location: Location:
- Contact:
Re: Lisa Montgomery
I suspect that domestic abuse where men are the victims is underreported. What I'm not inclined to believe is that there's some broad moral argument (well, an insinuation mostly) for necessary parity between male and female abuse victims, either in official reporting or in public provision.
Sometimes the argument implies that the unknown true extent of men's victimisation by abusive women means that a significant number (from 'some' to 'a lot') of men are being illtreated by women while being ignored by society; as a result women are gaining an unfair benefit from support services, criminal justice systems, etc: therefore, on the balance of sexual equality, abused women and the services that support them should give up some of their resources to help abused men.
I'm not going to bother to pull that apart. Instead I'll jump to the end and say that while there's really good reasons for finding out the true extent of domestic abuse and violence, in any direction, and doing something about it, it doesn't follow that women should get less support. In addition, hints that the abused women who do get support are somehow complicit in, or responsible for, the unknown pain of mens' silence simply have nowhere to go - so I won't go there..
On the other hand, when did this appalling tragedy (whichever way you look at it) become a men's rights issue? If the state killing of criminals says something about the balance of power between the sexes I don't think that it's the men who are getting the raw deal.
-+-
For my part: if killing is wrong, then killing someone to show that killing is wrong, is also wrong.
I think killing is wrong, but when we talk about this it's nearly always about exceptions to the rule. This leaves me with "Killing is absolutely wrong," Vs "Absolutely, killing is wrong... sometimes."
I can understand the pragmatic second view there--and even grudgingly tolerate it in a 'courts and laws are mostly other people's business' kind of way--but by my lights the first view is more socially, psychologically, legally, carcerally, and constitutionally consistent.
In terms of protecting society locking someone away for life has the same effect as executing them - which is to say it removes them so that there's no further or extra harm done to society from a life sentence which an execution would've stopped from occurring. I think this is a good enough reason on it's own for objecting to capital punishment.
Sometimes the argument implies that the unknown true extent of men's victimisation by abusive women means that a significant number (from 'some' to 'a lot') of men are being illtreated by women while being ignored by society; as a result women are gaining an unfair benefit from support services, criminal justice systems, etc: therefore, on the balance of sexual equality, abused women and the services that support them should give up some of their resources to help abused men.
I'm not going to bother to pull that apart. Instead I'll jump to the end and say that while there's really good reasons for finding out the true extent of domestic abuse and violence, in any direction, and doing something about it, it doesn't follow that women should get less support. In addition, hints that the abused women who do get support are somehow complicit in, or responsible for, the unknown pain of mens' silence simply have nowhere to go - so I won't go there..
On the other hand, when did this appalling tragedy (whichever way you look at it) become a men's rights issue? If the state killing of criminals says something about the balance of power between the sexes I don't think that it's the men who are getting the raw deal.
-+-
For my part: if killing is wrong, then killing someone to show that killing is wrong, is also wrong.
I think killing is wrong, but when we talk about this it's nearly always about exceptions to the rule. This leaves me with "Killing is absolutely wrong," Vs "Absolutely, killing is wrong... sometimes."
I can understand the pragmatic second view there--and even grudgingly tolerate it in a 'courts and laws are mostly other people's business' kind of way--but by my lights the first view is more socially, psychologically, legally, carcerally, and constitutionally consistent.
In terms of protecting society locking someone away for life has the same effect as executing them - which is to say it removes them so that there's no further or extra harm done to society from a life sentence which an execution would've stopped from occurring. I think this is a good enough reason on it's own for objecting to capital punishment.
Rationalia relies on voluntary donations. There is no obligation of course, but if you value this place and want to see it continue please consider making a small donation towards the forum's running costs.
Details on how to do that can be found here.
.
"It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice.
There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia."
Frank Zappa
"This is how humanity ends; bickering over the irrelevant."
Clinton Huxley » 21 Jun 2012 » 14:10:36 GMT
.
Details on how to do that can be found here.
.
"It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice.
There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia."
Frank Zappa
"This is how humanity ends; bickering over the irrelevant."
Clinton Huxley » 21 Jun 2012 » 14:10:36 GMT
- JimC
- The sentimental bloke
- Posts: 73206
- Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
- About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Contact:
Re: Lisa Montgomery
Brian, I certainly agree with your views in terms of killing by the state as a legal option, which is what I guess capital punishment means. I'm not sure of the statistics, but I would be surprised if there has not been a significant decrease in the frequency of such actions over the past 50 years or so, and an increase in the number of jurisdictions where it is no longer a legal option.
But other state authorised officers (soldiers, policemen) also kill others as part of their job. Those killings are constrained by a variety of rules, but generally, self-defence or the defence of others remains the basis of ethical justification, I suppose...
But other state authorised officers (soldiers, policemen) also kill others as part of their job. Those killings are constrained by a variety of rules, but generally, self-defence or the defence of others remains the basis of ethical justification, I suppose...
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!
And my gin!
- Svartalf
- Offensive Grail Keeper
- Posts: 40421
- Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:42 pm
- Location: Paris France
- Contact:
Re: Lisa Montgomery
Yeah, but in a gay couple, is it the wife man or the husband man who is more violent?
Embrace the Darkness, it needs a hug
PC stands for "Patronizing Cocksucker" Randy Ping
PC stands for "Patronizing Cocksucker" Randy Ping
- Hermit
- Posts: 25806
- Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:44 am
- About me: Cantankerous grump
- Location: Ignore lithpt
- Contact:
Re: Lisa Montgomery
Yes.
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould
Re: Lisa Montgomery
Yes, I did misspeak. What I was getting at, was that looking at domestic violence rates seperated the way they happen to be, in gay couples, can give an idea of whether men or women are violent.
Once you accept that, women seem like just another kind of person. Just as potentially horrible, but more likely to receive sympathy. Even if they are so crazy, they cut a person apart to steal their fetus.
Once you accept that, women seem like just another kind of person. Just as potentially horrible, but more likely to receive sympathy. Even if they are so crazy, they cut a person apart to steal their fetus.
Shit, Piss, Cock, Cunt, Motherfucker, Cocksucker and Tits.
-various artists
-various artists
The 'Walsh Question' 'What Is A Woman?' I'll put an answer here when someone posts one that is clear and comprehensible, by apostates to the Faith.
Update: I've been offered one!
Strong ideas don't require censorship to survive. Weak ideas cannot survive without it.
Re: Lisa Montgomery
I don't doubt it.Brian Peacock wrote: ↑Fri Jan 15, 2021 11:34 pmit doesn't follow that women should get less support. In addition, hints that the abused women who do get support are somehow complicit in, or responsible for, the unknown pain of mens' silence simply have nowhere to go - so I won't go there..
If you looked at the arguments from MRA's, checked evidence, then presented their best case for more support for male victims, I suspect you would end up like Silverberg.
Best to 'not go there'. Men know they get a raw deal. Most of us are fine with it.
It sure costs a lot socially to try to be empathetic to their side of things. Not 'crazy incel' side, more 'Warren Farrel' side, but even then it gets you branded.
I'm sure Ms. Montgomery deserved better. I'm pretty sure that it's much worse than this story. I'm saying that knowing the story was trying to show empathy to her side. I don't think it can. It's a bit darker than a few words can properly convey.
Leave it there, and my respect to the living victim (victims husband) for not pursuing rageful and blind reveng. I think anyone could understand rage from him.
Shit, Piss, Cock, Cunt, Motherfucker, Cocksucker and Tits.
-various artists
-various artists
The 'Walsh Question' 'What Is A Woman?' I'll put an answer here when someone posts one that is clear and comprehensible, by apostates to the Faith.
Update: I've been offered one!
Strong ideas don't require censorship to survive. Weak ideas cannot survive without it.
- Hermit
- Posts: 25806
- Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:44 am
- About me: Cantankerous grump
- Location: Ignore lithpt
- Contact:
Re: Lisa Montgomery
Going by the likely results of domestic violence men are more violent and women are entitled to more sympathy because of that.
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould
- JimC
- The sentimental bloke
- Posts: 73206
- Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
- About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Contact:
Re: Lisa Montgomery
But Hermit, that's so unfair to men! Their rights are being taken away by hordes of purple-haired overall-wearing lesbian feminists!
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!
And my gin!
- Sean Hayden
- Microagressor
- Posts: 17989
- Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2010 3:55 pm
- About me: recovering humanist
- Contact:
Re: Lisa Montgomery
Some bloke, Ernest van den Haag had an interesting take on this line of reasoning. In response to a critic of the death penalty applying the same reasoning as above he says:For my part: if killing is wrong, then killing someone to show that killing is wrong, is also wrong.
Earnest van den Haag, "In Defense of the Death Penalty: A practical and Moral Analysis" in Criminal Law Bulletin, Vol. 14. 1978...According to Beccaria, with the death penalty the "laws which punish homicide ... themselves commit it," thus giving "an example of barbarity." Those who speak of "legalized murder" use an oxymoronic phrase to echo this allegation. Legally imposed punishments such as fines, incarcerations, or executions, although often physically identical to the crimes punished, are not crimes or their moral equivalent. The difference between crimes and lawful acts is not physical, but legal. Driving a stolen car is a crime, although not physically different from driving a car you own. Unlawful imprisonment and kidnapping need not differ physically from the lawful arrest and incarceration used to punish unlawful imprisonment and kidnapping. Finally, whether a lawful punishment gives an "example of barbarity" depends on how the moral difference between crime and punishment is perceived. To suggest that its physical quality, ipso facto, morally disqualifies the punishment, is to assume what is to be shown.
I took this except from Steven Cahn's anthology, Exploring Ethics chapter 38.
Like everyone else it seems Haag was concerned mostly with what utility the death penalty might have for society. I'm more interested in whether these considerations satisfy the victim's needs, and somewhat unnervingly, whether we might be erecting a load of shit to avoid dealing with being blind to an important but hard to understand aspect of ourselves.
- Hermit
- Posts: 25806
- Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:44 am
- About me: Cantankerous grump
- Location: Ignore lithpt
- Contact:
Re: Lisa Montgomery
Wait a moment. Opponents of capital punishment say government-sanctioned executions are legalised murders. Earnest van den Haag counters by saying that the legality of those executions makes them not murder. Couldn't he simply have said "No, it's not"? The legal status does not change murder into something else. There was no law against sticking undesirables into extermination camps. Earnest van den Haag is just begging the question. It does not amount to an argument. It's simple gainsaying, which cannot be described as "interesting".Sean Hayden wrote: ↑Sat Jan 16, 2021 2:14 amSome bloke, Ernest van den Haag had an interesting take on this line of reasoning. In response to a critic of the death penalty applying the same reasoning as above he says:For my part: if killing is wrong, then killing someone to show that killing is wrong, is also wrong.
Earnest van den Haag, "In Defense of the Death Penalty: A practical and Moral Analysis" in Criminal Law Bulletin, Vol. 14. 1978...According to Beccaria, with the death penalty the "laws which punish homicide ... themselves commit it," thus giving "an example of barbarity." Those who speak of "legalized murder" use an oxymoronic phrase to echo this allegation. Legally imposed punishments such as fines, incarcerations, or executions, although often physically identical to the crimes punished, are not crimes or their moral equivalent. The difference between crimes and lawful acts is not physical, but legal. Driving a stolen car is a crime, although no physically different from driving a car you own. Unlawful imprisonment and kidnapping need not differ physically from the lawful arrest and incarceration used to punish unlawful imprisonment and kidnapping. Finally, whether a lawful punishment gives an "example of barbarity" depends on how the moral difference between crime and punishment is perceived. To suggest that its physical quality, ipso facto, morally disqualifies the punishment, is to assume what is to be shown.
I took this except from Steven Cahn's anthology, Exploring Ethics chapter 38.
Like everyone else it seems Haag was concerned mostly with what utility the death penalty might have for society. I'm more interested in whether these considerations satisfy the victims needs, and somewhat unnervingly, whether we might be erecting a load of shit to avoid dealing with being blind to an important but hard to understand aspect of ourselves.
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould
- Sean Hayden
- Microagressor
- Posts: 17989
- Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2010 3:55 pm
- About me: recovering humanist
- Contact:
Re: Lisa Montgomery
But that's not all he said, is it? He provided examples. Being dragged out of your home by strangers and thrown into a cell is not meaningfully different physically from being kidnapped. But it is not considered morally equivalent. Yet, for executions, you've provided nothing but a physical equivalence and assumed the moral one.
I am tempted to say that imprisonment is a kind of wrong, that would be my first reaction to get away from this anyway....
I am tempted to say that imprisonment is a kind of wrong, that would be my first reaction to get away from this anyway....
- Hermit
- Posts: 25806
- Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:44 am
- About me: Cantankerous grump
- Location: Ignore lithpt
- Contact:
Re: Lisa Montgomery
Try this: Executing political dissidents is not murder when they are lawfully executed.Sean Hayden wrote: ↑Sat Jan 16, 2021 2:39 amBut that's not all he said, is it? He provided examples. Being dragged out of your home by strangers and thrown into a cell is not meaningfully different physically from being kidnapped. But it is not considered morally equivalent. Yet, for executions, you've provided nothing but a physical equivalence and assumed the moral one.
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould
- Sean Hayden
- Microagressor
- Posts: 17989
- Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2010 3:55 pm
- About me: recovering humanist
- Contact:
Re: Lisa Montgomery
No, try this: Executing car thieves is not murder when they are lawfully executed.
- Hermit
- Posts: 25806
- Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:44 am
- About me: Cantankerous grump
- Location: Ignore lithpt
- Contact:
Re: Lisa Montgomery
Same thing.Sean Hayden wrote: ↑Sat Jan 16, 2021 2:48 amNo, try this: Executing car thieves is not murder when they are lawfully executed.
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould
- Sean Hayden
- Microagressor
- Posts: 17989
- Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2010 3:55 pm
- About me: recovering humanist
- Contact:
Re: Lisa Montgomery
I'm satisfied with my response:
...and I don't think your "try this" really means much.But that's not all he said, is it? He provided examples. Being dragged out of your home by strangers and thrown into a cell is not meaningfully different physically from being kidnapped. But it is not considered morally equivalent. Yet, for executions, you've provided nothing but a physical equivalence and assumed the moral one.
I am tempted to say that imprisonment is a kind of wrong, that would be my first reaction to get away from this anyway....
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests