|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyone even a little bit familiar with issues of free speech will recognize that this is an excellent precedent (though not in a way that will be directly measurable in America). I'm not a fan of weirdos who look to purchase walks from total strangers and proposition people for their time in a "bothersome" way, but some important points were raised by the appeals court in this case, it would seem.
Most prominently is the fact that laws governing conduct must be narrow enough in their language that a reasonable person can know what is and is not permissable behavior/speech. It is a commonly-invoked principle that where those definitions are vague and overly sweeping, a person will be required to curtail their behavior well short of what might be legally permissable, as a necessary precaution for compliance with the broadness of the law. If any speech which is deemed "bothersome" by the complaintant is criminalized, then ALL speech with be significantly chilled, even the most harmless sort, in order to stay safely within vague and imperceptible boundaries and limitations. This might actually prompt the question of whether asking someone on a date (in a more traditional fashion) could be construed as "bothersome", and by that measure illegal, or whether it is simply annoying. Left in the hands of the complaintant, the end result is that the accused "harrasser" is guilty if and only if the accuser says s/he is. This violates presumption of innocence in the most fundamental way.
The interesting reference the token activist in the article makes is to "code" language. She asserts that what might be percieved as harmless is actually a "code" to a specific listener for a threat. This concept reaches absurdity when cast in the prizm of practical legal application. Any person, at any time, for any reason, could describe any communication as a code "to them" for a threat, again placing the judge and jury in the ear canal of the listener, precisely where it does not belong.
This guy may actually be dangerous, or he might be a harmless quack. But our good activist poses a rhetorical question, whether women need to be violated before they are protected. This is interesting. Her real question seems to be whether we ought to prosecute people for an actual crime or on the simple presumption they might commit one. "Being dangerous" to others is not a crime in any free society unless that propensity for violence is clearly demonstrated through actions or specific threats of such. So in a certain sense, the answer to her question is, in fact, yes. A person must actually be harmed before they can press criminal charges. We have police protection in place but, alas, only in totalitarian environments can they be relied upon to prevent any potentially sick person from committing any potential act of violence. No clear danger can be presumed to be present, in my view, when one relies solely on what the accuser deems offensive conduct. Or so it goes in a free society (is there such a thing?).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What next? "Arrest him! I felt murdered!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Your point is brilliantly argued, and it ends with a question that for leads into the problem of male vs female perceptions of the "justice system", why it is there, and what constitutes "protection."
Lord forgive me, but I'm going to speak in sweeping generalizations here.
The one part of our society that I will admit has been patriarchal (that is, ruled by male logic and male values) until recently is the court system. The courts of Western countries have been largely informed by male notions of "justice" and "protection." Men see "justice" as the ability to see justice done to someone who has harmed them after than harm is done. In other words, a man would see the justice system useful for prosecuting other people who defraud him, rob him, or beat him up. The damage is done, but at least there's the possibility of some recourse afterward. A man feels "protected" by the legal system only in the sense that if someone directly threatens him in an unmistakeable way, he can appeal to the legal system to at least tell that person to stop the threats. If the person actually carries out the threats then we are back to "justice."
I haven't met many men who think that the purpose of the "justice system" is to prevent anything bad happening to them.
On the other hand, this is exactly how women see "justice" and "protection." They see the purpose of the justice system as being to prevent anything bad happening to them. As such, they are interested in setting up a whole different set of laws and punishments than are men. Unfortunately, as you pointed out, this leads to a totalitarian society. [Cynicism on] Of course this doesn't matter much to women, as they aren't on the receiving end of the "new justice" very often. [Cynicism off]
When talking to women and men about the courts and court cases I often get very different reactions from the two sexes, and I think that this is because the two sexes want very different things from the justice system, and have very different notions of what constitutes "fairness," "justice," and "protection."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So women would then agree to laws that protect them from themselves?
Generalizations aside, or at least not-with-standing, I don't see that logic or reason is a patriarchal attribute. As soon as a person asserts themselves in argument or debate they are using logic and reason. I think that logic and reason may have the patriarchy to thank for its inception as the prime method of securing a democracy, but logic and reason are a human condition and not estranged from women at their birth. Men have emotions and strong feelings tied to values that they hold as dearly as do women, but these could hardly be described in any meaningful sense as a matriarchal attribute.
I think there is something subtler and possibly profound in progress right now. Is it an accident that child support payments were taken out of the tax base? I am bothered by the lack of data available on this economic reality. I would like to know exactly what percentage of GDP is involved in this massive transfer of wealth. I would like to know what percentage of GDP is involved in spousal support payments.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
...I think that this is because the two sexes want very different things from the justice system, and have very different notions of what constitutes "fairness," "justice," and "protection."
*sigh* I'd promised myself I wouldn't inflict my Grand Theories of Everything on the folks here (that's what personal websites are for!), but I can't resist throwing in a little bit.
Men tend to view themselves and others as isolated and autonomous. Women tend to view themselves and others as connected and interdependent. (By default, men see themselves as exiles, women see themselves as prisoners.)
These two perspectives and ways of viewing people result in the development of two entirely different strategies for dealing with others, including different moralities. Both strategies are quite workable and effective when dealing with others who have the same perspective.
Justice is the morality of the autonomous individual. It views people as opaque. Their innards are there own business. Therefore, it discounts their intentions and judges them primarily by their actions and the visible consequences of their actions. It sees individuals as powerful and requires them to subordinate their personal power to impersonal principle. Principle is the empathy of justice.
Mercy is the morality of connected individuals. It views people as transparent, their innards, their feelings, are what are important. Therefore it judges them primarily by their intentions and the emotional consequences of their actions. It sees individuals as valuable and requires them to share their personal value with others. Empathy is the principle of mercy.
These two moralities are often incompatible. One can transgress one morality egregiously while remaining perfectly innocent in the eyes of the other. Because men tend to embrace and live by justice and women by mercy, each sex often stares in amazement at the other, incredulous at the brazen combination of immorality and self-righteouness.
Traditionally, our system of justice has been guided by, well, justice... tempered more or less by mercy. Most of the changes to laws that we talk about here have been attempts to inject more mercy into the system. But mercy untempered by justice can be really nasty and destructive. To see people as valuable, you must ignore their power. (Conversely, to see people as powerful, you must ignore their value, but that's less obvious.)
Without justice there is no freedom. Without mercy there is no community.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday February 09, @03:09PM EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
Larry:
Men tend to view themselves and others as isolated and autonomous. Women tend to view themselves and others as connected and interdependent. (By default, men see themselves as exiles, women see themselves as prisoners.)
If this is the case, then why are men considered better at systematic thought? What I mean to ask is why are men better at putting "A" in relation with "B", and why do men seem to dominate abstract thought (e.g. mathematics) in general?
************************************************
Traditionally, our system of justice has been guided by, well, justice... tempered more or less by mercy
************************************************
Well, I have few comments on this, too. If "traditionally" our system of justice has been guided by justice tempered with mercy, then how, given that traditionally judges have been almost all male, has this managed to occur -- if women control the market on mercy?
My second comment is that I don't see anything particularily merciful in the variety of "sexual" laws that feminists have helped put on the books. I don't see feminists urging treatment (rather than incarcaration) for sex-offenders. Indeed, I don't see much mercy, charity, OR the recognition of interdependance in the program of the gen-fems.
Last but not least, most of the great moral teachers of this world have been males. Jesus and his "turn the other cheek", Gandhi and his non-violence, the Buddha and his preachings of peace and forgiveness.
Do you have any explanation to defend your rather wild generalizations?
Remo
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Remo,
"What I mean to ask is why are men better at putting "A" in relation with "B", and why do men seem to dominate abstract thought (e.g. mathematics) in general?"
I don't know. Biology? But I'm not following why you bring it up. I'm talking about one's subjective view of themselves and the behaviors, conclusions and operating principles that perspective seems to produce. "Where you stand depends on where you sit." It doesn't seem dependent on a capacity for any particular type of thought process.
I call these two subjective viewpoints Other-ness for the separated self and Same-ness for the connected self. Both perspectives are simplifications of the complexities of the human condition so both perspectives have huge blind spots. Any particular man or woman will display a tendency to act and think as an Other or as a Same. If you want to perform an experiment, start asking people "Which would be worse, to be a prisoner or to be an exile?" Most people will have an immediate and strong preference. If they answer "prisoner," they are an Other, used to isolation and mistrustful of connection. If they answer "exile," they are a Same, for converse reasons.
However...
Generally, stereotypically, archetypally or however you want to put it, men seem to act as if they are fundamentally separate and autonomous from others. Women seem to act as if they are connected and interdependent.
I don't know why. Nature, nurture, Freudian psychology, manifest destiny? Take your pick for an explanation. Men interacting with men treat each other as Others. Women interacting with women treat each other as Sames.
Men interacting with women causes confusion. I think these ideas help clear some of that up.
"If "traditionally" our system of justice has been guided by justice tempered with mercy, then how, given that traditionally judges have been almost all male, has this managed to occur -- if women control the market on mercy?"
No one controls either one. I think part of becoming an adult is learning to recognize the valid claims that both moralities have on our behavior and learning when each is most approppriately followed (or violated). The ideas and values of justice and mercy were around long before radfems came on the scene. They are simply advancing their own agenda by unilaterily claiming ownership of the mantle of mercy.
"My second comment is that I don't see anything particularily merciful in the variety of "sexual" laws that feminists have helped put on the books."
That's because we generally think of mercy as forgiveness for violating justice. One who does harm but with good intentions is guilty in the eyes of justice but innocent in the eyes of mercy.
Mercy is the label I'm stuck with in describing the whole system of moral thinking "traditionally" seen as most pronounced in the feminine and which has usually had some place in our legal system. That system forgives based on intention, but it also condemns based on intention. The idea that a "hate crime" is more heinous than the same crime committed for another reason is an example of the condemnation of mercy. Simply hating someone without acting on it is a violation of mercy and, the way we're going, that violation will eventually be legally punishable.
Mercy is a moral system with its own rules, its own pitfalls. If we don't understand it, we don't know when it's being misapplied, as it has been for the last few decades.
Do you have any explanation to defend your rather wild generalizations?
I find them useful. When people seem to be arguing at cross-purposes here, it's often because they are arguing from these two different perspectives. When someone talks about the need for individual responsibility, they want to treat people as powerful and autonomous. When another replies that that is blaming the victim, they want to treat people as valuable and interconnected. I don't know how to reconcile the two, but I can point out that neither is being deliberately immoral. Maybe then, it's just a matter of deciding which view of a person is most appropriate for that situation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm talking about one's subjective view of themselves and the behaviors, conclusions and operating principles that perspective seems to produce. "Where you stand depends on where you sit." It doesn't seem dependent on a capacity for any particular type of thought process.
As well thought out as this seems, it turns out in the end to be quite untrue. Clinical evidence (no I won't cite my sources) notwithstanding, you are simply playing with words. There is no evidence to support this thing you call thought process. There is a huge difference between the quite valid concept of self-evident and the totally superstitious concept of common knowledge. "I think therefore I am" is self evident. "My thinking is an analog process" is not self evident what so ever. We don't understand thought; if we did, then we would have produced artificial intelligence in lock step with technological capability.
I call these two subjective viewpoints Other-ness for the separated self and Same-ness for the connected self. Both perspectives are simplifications of the complexities of the human condition so both perspectives have huge blind spots. Any particular man or woman will display a tendency to act and think as an Other or as a Same. If you want to perform an experiment, start asking people "Which would be worse, to be a prisoner or to be an exile?" Most people will have an immediate and strong preference. If they answer "prisoner," they are an Other, used to isolation and mistrustful of connection. If they answer "exile," they are a Same, for converse reasons.
subjective viewpoints? What is an objective viewpoint?
separated self? That could mean anything from schizophrenia to mystic visions to astral projection. What does it mean to you?
simplifications of the complexities? Hold on a minute there my friend. What does this mean?
There are five attributes to any complex system. Please tell us how you simplify a complexity.
Both perspectives have huge blind spots? Oh! I think I get it. Do you mean all the things that, by definition, rest outside of A perspective, or all things which, by definition, cannot be included in a point of view?
Your question, Which would be worse, is a leading question. Would you rather be a prisoner in heaven or an exile in hell, or would you rather be and exile in heaven or a prisoner in hell. The answer to your question would tell you nothing meaningful about the respondent. We are after all, to quote you, dealing with complexities are we not? Therefore, as the respondent is complex, how could you distinguish spurious from causal. You could ask your question of a million people and still not have the right answer despite what appears to be answers consistent with your assumptions. You will always get the answer you are looking for if you simply select the appropriate question.
The idea that a "hate crime" is more heinous than the same crime committed for another reason is an example of the condemnation of mercy. That is your opinion and I can't do more than agree or disagree. I will reiterate my position that mercy occurs when clemency is granted for reasons outside the domain of the crime, and I can't at this moment think of what form such a context would take in this case. So in the sense that there may be no context for mercy in the case of hate crime, then I agree with you in as much as mercy may not be possible in this case.
Simply hating someone without acting on it is a violation of mercy and, the way we're going, that violation will eventually be legally punishable. Interesting, I had a conversation with my pastor about hating my ex-wife for what she had done to me. He, (Convention Baptist), said that is was okay to hate what she had done, but it was not okay to hate her.
One who does harm but with good intentions is guilty in the eyes of justice but innocent in the eyes of mercy. That is not true. Mercy is the application of clemency in the face of guilt.
A Jewish spokesman once defined hutzpah with the example, "a man who murders his mother and his father and then throws himself on the mercy of the courts because he is an orphan" (I don't know the source). Mercy has occurred when clemency is granted for reasons outside of the domain of the crime. Forgiveness occurs when absolution is granted by the victim.
Maybe then, it's just a matter of deciding which view of a person is most appropriate for that situation. That is why we have juries. That is also called context.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As well thought out as this seems, it turns out in the end to be quite untrue.
Well, thanks for the well-thought out part, anyway. :-)
Clinical evidence (no I won't cite my sources) notwithstanding, you are simply playing with words.
True. Largely, that is what I am doing. We use words like justice, mercy, responsibility, blame, guilt and innocence with great passion and conviction as if the concepts they name all fit together in a coherent manner. I've been examining the way we use words like these to see if there is a structure to them. What do we mean when we say that children are innocent? Does that mean that adults are guilty?
The two views of the self and the corresponding moralities are a hypothetical framework that fits the way we use the words quite nicely. I can't prove or disprove that anyone actually structures their view of the world in these ways, but the way we use the words implies it.
There is no evidence to support this thing you call thought process. There is a huge difference between the quite valid concept of self-evident and the totally superstitious concept of common knowledge.
Yet we still act as though we have a thought process, whether it's a valid concept or not. There is no evidence to support this thing we call justice either. Yet we act as if it's real. Like guilt, it's something we make up in our heads. Maybe it is all illusion and superstition but it arises in some way through human experience. I'm not in this for the metaphysical questions, though. I'm trying to figure out how we can say the same words to each other and still completely misunderstand.
What is an objective viewpoint?
LOL - I haven't found one yet. Donald, this is all relative. It's all about extremely fuzzy thinking that people do (or don't do). I'm not talking for a second about what is and isn't moral. I'm talking about the way people seem to think about morality, trying to systematize the things they imply about it by the way they talk about it. There's nothing to prove here. Either you say to yourself, "Yeah, I've thought about justice kinda like that before" or you don't. If so, here's a hint at what your underlying assumptions might be. If not, consider me just another crackpot on the Web.
The answer to your question would tell you nothing meaningful about the respondent.
Maybe not. If you do try asking people that question, though, refusing to provide any further details, you'll notice a pattern. Then, if you're intrigued, you can form and test your own hypothesis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"We use words like justice, mercy, responsibility, blame, guilt and innocence with great passion and conviction as if the concepts they name all fit together in a coherent manner"
Well not everyone is capable of abstracting to the same degree or with the same enthusiasm. The domain of conceptual terms or words, like truth, honour, god, or love are without definition in the sense that mathematics, science, cat or Ford can be defined.
They have only usage and this changes over time.
The problem that needs to be addressed is the perpetual creation of new virtual moralities that create whole new classes of criminals, and as we wathc the jails keep getting more and more populated.
The whole mythology of domestic violence has become anything but science or statistic.
It is now a sector of the economy. An industry of chaos. On a case by case basis probably larger than the housing sector. More remunerative than software development.
This might be simply a war of words except that in war of words the only casualty is language. This about power, control and the fundamental redistribution of wealth.
We are exeriencing great economic disruptions around the world. But I suppose that this has nothing to do with taking 50 to 200 percent of men's incomes and redistributing them into private sector welfare programs.
Any nation that taxed its primary income earners at these rates would crumble economically now wouldn't they?
Look around you gentelmen there is growing chaos in the land.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Mercy is the morality of connected individuals".
Mercy is an attribute of empathy. Empathy is a uniquely human (non-gendered) quality.
Morality is a construct disintersted in reason.
Justice I believe has its origins in religion. It comes to us by way of staying in the good graces of some deity.
"Traditionally, our system of justice has been guided by, well, justice".
The system of justice has evolved, and has been guided by a mob, theocracy, monarchy, dictator, or constitutional democracy from millenia to millenia from country to country.
What is happening in the western world right now is simply a form of "gendic (ethnic) cleansing"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
" What is happening in the western world right now is simply a form of "gendic (ethnic) cleansing" "
should have read
What is happening in the western world right now is simply a form of ethnic cleansing, you could describe it as gendic cleansing
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Morality is a construct disinterested in reason.
"They (wise men) saw in morality a guide, that they might walk along with others to reach a hill."
- Chuang-tzu
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
By comparison, it is a good example of what exactly is wrong with the family courts.
They serve no useful purpose germain to the welfare or functon of the family. The family that enters this court has in fact ceased to exist.
They serve only to fatten the "State", and enrich the machinery of government. It is a self sustaining and self agrandising entity feeds off of the destruction of families.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
