Lisa Montgomery

[Brian Peacock]

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.

[JimC]

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...

[Svartalf]

Yeah, but in a gay couple, is it the wife man or the husband man who is more violent?

[Hermit]

Yeah, but in a gay couple, is it the wife man or the husband man who is more violent?

Yes.

[Cunt]

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.

[Cunt]

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..

I don't doubt it.

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.

[Hermit]

...women seem like just another kind of person. Just as potentially horrible, but more likely to receive sympathy.

Going by the likely results of domestic violence men are more violent and women are entitled to more sympathy because of that.

[JimC]

...women seem like just another kind of person. Just as potentially horrible, but more likely to receive sympathy.

Going by the likely results of domestic violence men are more violent and women are entitled to more sympathy because of that.

But Hermit, that's so unfair to men! Their rights are being taken away by hordes of purple-haired overall-wearing lesbian feminists!

[Sean Hayden]

For my part: if killing is wrong, then killing someone to show that killing is wrong, is also wrong.

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:

...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.

Earnest van den Haag, "In Defense of the Death Penalty: A practical and Moral Analysis" in Criminal Law Bulletin, Vol. 14. 1978

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]

For my part: if killing is wrong, then killing someone to show that killing is wrong, is also wrong.

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:

...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.

Earnest van den Haag, "In Defense of the Death Penalty: A practical and Moral Analysis" in Criminal Law Bulletin, Vol. 14. 1978

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.

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]

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....

[Hermit]

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.

Try this: Executing political dissidents is not murder when they are lawfully executed.

[Sean Hayden]

No, try this: Executing car thieves is not murder when they are lawfully executed.

[Hermit]

No, try this: Executing car thieves is not murder when they are lawfully executed.

Same thing.

[Sean Hayden]

I'm satisfied with my response:

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....

...and I don't think your "try this" really means much.