|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday March 06, @09:49AM EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
“But we need to wrestle with madness and the law”
yes
meaning the neo-matriarchy, which is both
when fem ur-apologist goodman waffles, you know they’re circling the wagons
you hear me barking, andrea?
"goodman"
pretty ironic name
noah, paul, luke, john, mary
nothin ironic about those
i won’t forget you
“there’s a babe in the arms of a woman in a rage”
bob dylan
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I understand what everyone here has to say about the Yates case and the bone-chilling hypocrisy, and all of that noise.
But please, don't lose sight of the fact that she is just one woman. She might represent a larger phenomenon in many ways. Yes, it's a feminist twinkie defense and the worst case of feminist jurisprudence we are likely to see at work for some time. Yes, everyone wants Mr. Yates to take the fall for her.
But she is just one woman. What she does not represent is women in general. And more importantly, her sleazy defenders at NOW don't even come close to representing the voice of women in America. Most women want Yates to fry, actually, in spite of the whinnying from the NOW camp. Keep your eye on the ball, guys and gals. With every passing day, the rhetoric surrounding this case becomes more shrill, and that is precisely what the men's movement doesn't need. I'm sure I'll get flamed for saying so, but that's exactly what has me so dismayed. The kind of illiberal hatred and illogic that infects the modern feminist movement simply hasn't worked to legitimized their case. It won't legitimize ours, either.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree that we've been posting a lot of stories lately on the Yates case and violence by women in general. We've simply been inundated in these kinds of news submissions, and I've also rejected quite a few of them, too.
I think we need to strike a balance between making our points that violence is not a male issue and that double standards exist with regard to sentencing and treatment of violent men and women, without going too far by focusing too much energy on these issues. After all, the men's movement encompasses much more than this.
Your comments are duly noted, nazgul, and others who have expressed the same sentiment recently.
Scott
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday March 06, @11:37AM EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
I think the reason for the focus is that we've all seen some manner of progress, modest though it has been, on the gender equality front, and many of us want to see how this case will be decided as a measure of who all of this is being realized in the courts. I think we are misleading ourselves if we think that 1) the result will be to our "liking" 2) even if it is, that this means that there is a quantum change in the equality of justice in the United States. We cannot forget that the Texas standard for insanity is different than it is in most of the country: sanity is presumed and insanity must be proven. In most states, it is and has been for some time, the other way around.
We are all hopeful for a sign of progress, no matter how modest.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree with just about everything you said, but something really bothers me. The use of the phrase "illiberal hatred" seems to portray that liberal-ideology is the absolute bane of hatred or bigotry of any kind. In other words, anyone who follows a political ideology other than liberalism (e.g., conservatism, libertarianism, impartialism, etc.) is susceptable to hatred (or, at least, MORE susceptable) than someone who didn't. THAT phrase seems so self-righteous. Why not just say "hatred"?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by The Ox
(oxford-systems@removetoreply.mindspring.com)
on Thursday March 07, @02:41AM EST (#17)
(User #79 Info)
|
|
|
|
|
...description. It has nothing to do with conservatives, liberals or libertarians. It's an adjective that roughly means "narrow minded" and it has no political context at all. You can have "illiberal emotions" no matter whether you are a conservative, liberal, libertarian, or supreme dictator of the world. ;-)
The true danger is when liberty is nibbled away, for expedience, and by parts. - Edmund Burke
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday March 06, @01:46PM EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
I think Scott is just a fucking sellout. A few women whine about being portrayed badly and he has to suck up to them to make sure he hasn't hurt anyones feelings. Maybe they need to learn to take what they've been dishing out to men all these years. Don't tell me you're not responsible. Every woman who wasn't a vocal anti-feminist in the past 20 years was just as responsible as A. Dworkin and all the other radical man-haters.
Scott is the Bill Clinton of the men's movement. Are you even gettin any from these bitches, Garman?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday March 06, @01:57PM EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
And since I know you're so much of a coward that you will delete these comments, I have one last thing to say to you:
You're little mensactivism groupie here is going to be the target of the real activists when the times comes. You're holding people back from the real revolution. You and all your spineless sheep just don't get it. Maybe once you get beyond your idealistic college-prep boy view of the world you'll see the blood on your hands. But it will be too late then.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, I'm sure Scott has your IP address, so if you *do* try to follow through on your obviously psychotic threat, we'll know who to blame.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by The Ox
(oxford-systems@removetoreply.mindspring.com)
on Thursday March 07, @02:45AM EST (#18)
(User #79 Info)
|
|
|
|
|
I think if you have a point to make you'd be better off trying to do it rationally. I don't stop by these boards all that often but when I do I get to reach conclusions about reasonable and unreasonable in a hurry. I don't listen to the unreasonable and I don't think I'm alone in that.
There is nothing to be gained by fostering hate.
The true danger is when liberty is nibbled away, for expedience, and by parts. - Edmund Burke
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You sound so much like someone about to bring a gun to their highschool - just tragic.
Instead of actually making worthwhile efforts, or even encouraging others to, you insult those who don't follow this insinuated violent approach to opposing wrong. There's a reason we don't - it doesn't work. Acting rational has it's merits, takes awhile to learn them, though.
More time than whining about how much of a revolutionary you are and how much others are holding back the big bad revolution.
Less time, though, for that revolution to actually happen.
Scott, imaginary blood stains come out pretty easily. Baking soda and vinegar - wait, maybe not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So you call me a coward, but you can't even sign your real name to a post. I'm not going to dignify your comments with a further response. I'm tired of hearing people advocate a radical revolution and do nothing but talk about it. We're getting some results - show us what you've accomplished.
Scott
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Every woman who wasn't a vocal anti-feminist in the past 20 years was just as responsible as A. Dworkin and all the other radical man-haters."
20 years ago I was in elementary school. Sorry my politics weren't what you thought they should have been when I was 10.
Scott, you do good work and in a reasonable and responsible manner. Keep it up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday March 06, @04:38PM EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
“Scott, you do good work and in a reasonable and responsible manner. Keep it up.”
ah yes, wiccid, dear paragon of moderation
count on wiccidness to further marginalize the marginalized
blessings on you, sister!
“But please, don't lose sight of the fact that she [yates] is just one woman. She might represent a larger phenomenon in many ways.”
“might”?
see, weak shit like that is why ole anon keeps getting pissed
yates "might" represent a larger phenomenon?
man, that's unbeliveable -- it's like back to square one
don't worry about the "extremists," bro -- worry about yourself
and as long as you're opining what the "movement needs,” i’d say it needs less politesse and more ferocity
"reasonableness" hasn’t done much for the men’s movement so far
not to mention for the safety of children abused at the hands of women across america
not wanting to acknowledge that this is happening on mass scale is not the same as its absence
so when someone rubs our face in it, let’s allow the messenger to live, shall we?
“Keep your eye on the ball, guys and gals. With every passing day, the rhetoric surrounding this case becomes more shrill, and that is precisely what the men's movement doesn't need.”
if you think speaking truth is “shrill rhetoric,” then fuck you
THAT is “shrill rhetoric”
“You're little mensactivism groupie here is going to be the target of the real activists when the times comes.”
not by me
this site will stand or fall on merit
“You're holding people back from the real revolution.”
well, in our rush to stomp our “psychotic,” i must note that a site titularly supporting men’s activism often prominently supports the work and influence of avowed feminists (e.g., ifeminsts.com) while pointedly ignoring the work of activist men deemed incorrect
politically expedient, to be sure, but lame
"Every woman who wasn't a vocal anti-feminist in the past 20 years was just as responsible as A. Dworkin and all the other radical man-haters."
i disagree with "just as responsible" but on the whole -- painful as it is to confront -- our “psychotic” is largely correct
and just so we can avoid the “coward” accusations --
RAY REMARK (REMARKSMAN)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
well, in our rush to stomp our “psychotic,” i must note that a site titularly supporting men’s activism often prominently supports the work and influence of avowed feminists (e.g., ifeminsts.com) while pointedly ignoring the work of activist men deemed incorrect
Ray, Ray, Ray... I thought you knew better about ifeminists.com. I know you don't like them because of their pro-gun stance, but "avowed feminists" (by which I presume you mean anti-male feminists), isn't the way to describe ifeminism, unless your use of "avowed feminists" does not refer to anti-male feminism. Individualism is more properly the word to describe it, considering its tremendous support of men's rights. The "feminism" in ifeminism is because Wendy's movement does specialize on the female side of the equality issue. Aren't we who call ourselves masculists being hypocritical if we criticize groups like ifeminists using the term "feminists?" I think so.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday March 06, @08:20PM EST (#15)
|
|
|
|
|
“Ray, Ray, Ray... I thought you knew better about ifeminists.com.”
you are not bright enough to patronize me, mist
yes, i’ve read the site’s position about ifeminism many times
“avowed feminists” means “avowed feminists”
had i wished to say “anti-male feminists” as you kindly suggest, i’d have selected that phrase instead
please allow me to choose my own language and state my own opinions – that way you won’t need to “presume” anything
is that wicked laughter i hear in the background?
ray ray ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's really too bad you've become this bitter, Ray. I remember your posts from before you banned yourself from MANN (as a result of our association with the pro-gun ifeminists.com). I had much more respect for you then.
As for patronizing you, what makes you think I was doing so? As for brightness, you know absolutely nothing about me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hey Scott, I think it's time to get rid of the anonymous user option.
Brought to you by the sham mirrors.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Scott Clinton? Does that mean there's a Monica Lewinski figure lurking somewhere? Scott, you dog!
I knew there was something missing from these posts recently, namely Remarksman's enthusiastic form of male politics. I've come out with something similar myself (in relation to the Colarado ceramic penises, I think), for which I was righly made to feel like an idiot by both Scott and Nightmist. You see, it's easy to sit here at a keyboard and call for revolution, but how about going out into the street and actually starting it? I understand your frustration, Ray, but you can't expect others to go out and save the world on your behalf while you just sit on the sidelines mouthing off. I've done it, to my great embarrassment, but I learned from that mistake. If you think you can do better than Scott or anyone else then by all means go ahead and do it, otherwise come up with some constructive ideas or just shut up.
As for the issue of violence, I think it is one of the major defining issues of the men's movement. There was an article on mensactivism.org not long ago about a proposed 'Domestic Violence Toolkit', the purpose of which seemed to be to universalise the issue of domestic violence, making it an ever-present issue in all areas of life, from the earliest stages of school, through youth groups and leisure activities, to the workplace and beyond. The effect of this would be to embed society in the feminist DV framework. It would become the primary mode by which people would perceive the nature of relationships between the sexes, and it would be used as a bottomless pit of justification for any and every change that so-called 'gender feminists' want to create. This is not just another issue, it's something more serious than that. Every ideology finds for itself a primary vector for its expression; a device by which it is best able to realise its true intentions - a hat that fits, if you like. Domestic violence is shaping up to be that vector for misandrist feminism. It contains everything; ideas about the fundamental nature of the sexes (men=abusers, women=victims), the nature of adults and children (men=abusers, children=victims), the implicit legitimisation of the feminist family model (in which the man is merely tolerated by the woman and has no rights in relation to his children), and a whole raft of other legitimisations which deny men due process in the courts, deny them rights over their own property and finances, and deny them equal protection under the law (not only from abusive women but also from crimes by other men, which are seen as less serious because the genders are the same). What is needed is a 'DV Reality' campaign, the purpose of which would be not simply to ensure that everyone gets their facts straight about domestic violence, but also to critically undermine the universalisation of DV into a means of transforming society to an anti-male feminist model. Such a campaign would be worth more than all the angry bullshit from the likes of me and Remarksman.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've come out with something similar myself (in relation to the Colarado ceramic penises, I think), for which I was righly made to feel like an idiot by both Scott and Nightmist.
Hey, Uberganger. I can't speak for Scott, but as far as I am concerned I never intended to make you feel like an idiot. :) I find your posts quite entertaining these days, and all the admins here had a laugh riot over your "women made to act like seals in pornography" response to the troll a while back.
:)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Uberganger, ditto on NM's post.
Scott
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday March 07, @11:13AM EST (#22)
|
|
|
|
|
“It's really too bad you've become this bitter, Ray. I remember your posts from before you banned yourself from MANN (as a result of our association with the pro-gun ifeminists.com). I had much more respect for you then.”
so, misty, now you are omniscient of the inner lives of other beings?
how conveniently divine
anyone disagreeing with you, or the site, is thus “bitter”
leave the agitprop to the fems -- they're the experts
tho you guys are catching up quick
i am not interested in your respect, nino – though obviously you seem to value it, and yourself, very highly
“You see, it's easy to sit here at a keyboard and call for revolution, but how about going out into the street and actually starting it? I understand your frustration, Ray, but you can't expect others to go out and save the world on your behalf while you just sit on the sidelines mouthing off. I've done it, to my great embarrassment, but I learned from that mistake. If you think you can do better than Scott or anyone else then by all means go ahead and do it, otherwise come up with some constructive ideas or just shut up.”
zeig heil, uberganger!!
do you wear an armband, too?
i’ve been living in “the street” for many years now, working on “men’s issues” – like finding food, clothes, and self-respect for them
where have you been, ganger? we haven’t seen you there
i also spent years working with the worst psychotics in oregon – very low-functioning people, usually homeless and largely helpless, overwhelmingly males – for very little, or no, money
i’m the one who sits with them in the gutter, comforting and encouraging them
i guess that qualifies as “going out into the street,” huh?
you and your buds wouldn’t know “the street” if it was paved over your faces
hypocrites and petty powerplayers
like misty, you make vindictive assumptions having no basis in experience
“you can't expect others to go out and save the world on your behalf while you just sit on the sidelines mouthing off”
please point to any statement i have made requesting that anyone save the world on my behalf
what up with mann’s commentators? what’s with the circle-the-wagons-groupthink, the search-and-destroy mode? why the continuing insistence upon attributing statements to folks that they have not made?
this is how uber and mist and scotty arrive at truth and justice?
“sit on the sidelines mouthing off,” mein fuhrer?
i’m one of those who’ve been on the front lines of the movement – taking the hits and doing the dirtywork
most of the others aren't alive anymore
twenty years on, latecomers put up slick websites, designate themselves “leaders,” and commence “positioning” themselves politically
then neo-fascists like yourself – who haven’t done jackfuckingshit – seek to extend their cowardice and apathy to me
what size bra do you wear?
“I've come out with something similar myself (in relation to the Colarado ceramic penises, I think), for which I was righly made to feel like an idiot by both Scott and Nightmist.”
well, all hail the idiot-makers then, kings scott and nightmist
you were an idiot before they found you, bro – they only reinforced your submission
again, for anyone interested in reality, rather than hate-filled invective, do a little research
to take merely one example -- the boulder situation had been ongoing for weeks when this board discovered it
the very day it hit the board, i was the first person to call for action on it
i came up with the “men’s organizations” contacts in colorado, got the logistical ball rolling, sent messages, and ensured that men had at least one local contact (thomas) willing to do more than clap at the exhibit and eat popcorn
though i have no money, no home, and no transportation, i offered to meet the following weekend in boulder with a couple other activists for a protest
had no idea how i could get there, either – but i damn well knew what to do when i arrived
where were you, mein fuhrer? i don't recall much "activism" from you on this or any other issue
you weren't “out into the streets,” that’s for sure
fifteen years ago i was publishing “masculist” fiction around the country
where are your publications, mein fuhrer? please direct me to evidence of any work whatsoever except sniping like a toady on bulletin boards?
please hold your fecal tongue and check my website if you wish learn about my activist work – not that i’ve bothered to list it all
where is your website, mein fuhrer? where are your “ideas” on masculinity?
i will gladly present to you dozens of examples of both practical and theoretical activism i have performed in the last decade
please point to ONE thing you have done – except to attempt to marginalize and silence the very persons who have been covering your weakling butt for decades
“If you think you can do better than Scott or anyone else then by all means go ahead and do it, otherwise come up with some constructive ideas or just shut up.”
if you bothered to do even the beginnings of research, you would find almost immediately that i have come up with many “ideas”
but it’s easier to jump on the whuppin bandwagon and pooch out your chest, isn’t it?
“shut up,” huh?
brave little bambino, tossing bombs from cover of the ether
you wouldn’t last five minutes where i live
RAY REMARK
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday March 07, @12:59PM EST (#23)
|
|
|
|
|
weh weh weeeeeeehhhhhhh look like yore twenty years not get you shit
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
i’m one of those who’ve been on the front lines of the movement – taking the hits and doing the dirtywork
most of the others aren't alive anymore
twenty years on, latecomers put up slick websites, designate themselves “leaders,” and commence “positioning” themselves politically
Not so long ago there was a thing going around called 'An Open Letter To The Men's Movement' written by a guy called Robert Sides, who claimed to have done more for the men's movement than anyone else. Like you, Ray, he was someone who'd spent twenty years (or was it thirty?) supposedly fighting on behalf of men, which was nice of him. Unfortunately he didn't seem to have achieved a great deal with it, and while I've heard the names of plenty of feminists and even a few 'masculinists' I'd never heard of this guy. Furthermore, his decades of activity hadn't created any kind of cohesive, organised men's movement with clear goals and the will to achieve them. And worst of all, it had obviously never occurred to this guy in all his years of 'activism' that he was doing it wrong. He never asked himself what kind of men's movement was likely to really get anywhere, he just kept doing the same ineffective shit for twenty years and at the end of it took out his frustrations on others in his tedious 'Open Letter'.
In many ways, Ray, you're like that Robert Sides guy. Sure, you've done your twenty years' service, at least by your own reckoning, but you've never created the movement or the revolution or whatever the hell you want to call it that would really make a difference - and like Sides, you don't seem to have questioned your tactics much. And now you want to have a pop at everyone else for not doing what you never achieved? You want to refer to me as a Nazi for pointing out that there's no mileage in calling for something which just isn't going to happen? Duh, it's no wonder guys like you and Sides come accross as bitter and angry - a fruitless anger that stews in itself and never goes anywhere. You may be out on the street, Ray, but you aren't starting anything and you never will, not anything that'll make a real difference. Fine. You can be the noble martyr-hero while others take a long hard look at what's going to make the men's movement work. Twenty years, and you and Sides haven't even got that licked yet? Well, looks like I'm not the only idiot around here. At least I can admit to it.
A few other things. From your earlier posting:
and as long as you're opining what the "movement needs,” i’d say it needs less politesse and more ferocity
As you can see, Ray, you big idiot, I'm quite capable of not being at all polite. Really makes you warm to me, I'll bet. But I kind of agree with you. The men's movement must assert an authority, not wait around for someone to grant it, and that's something it hasn't really done yet (not after twenty years? Who'd have thunk it?)
"reasonableness" hasn’t done much for the men’s movement so far
Well, the men's movement doesn't seem to know what it's here for. Even after twenty or thirty years it hasn't identified or invented its primary monster. Feminists have their 'patriarchy' while the men's movement has... erm... durr... Well, maybe someone will think of something in another twenty years, something that can be universalised and converted into innumerable forms, something that can be seen in everything if you know how to look for it. I expect they'll have rounded you up by then, Ray. Can't have strange men wandering the streets making the women feel 'kinda uneasy'. I already know what the primary monster for the men's movement must be, but I don't suppose anyone will pay any attention. They'll do the same shit for twenty years, get nowhere, then get angry at people who aren't doing it like they are. I'm still doing the impolite thing, by the way.
not to mention for the safety of children abused at the hands of women across america
Agreed 100%. And it's not just in America. I belong to the 96% of the world's population that doesn't live in the US of A, and both myself and my brother were beaten and terrorised by our mother when we were growing up. Of course, that was over twenty years ago.
not wanting to acknowledge that this is happening on mass scale is not the same as its absence
And if it's happening on a mass scale that must mean that there are a lot of people out there whose experiences don't fit the standard feminist template. You'd think someone would work out a way to capitalise on that...
OK, Ray. You're right. I wouldn't last long out on the streets... though the streets where I live are quite nice, so maybe... but then again, although I'm an idiot (the case is clearly beyond doubt) I'm not dumb enough to put myself in that position. I nearly was in that position ten years ago, but that's another story. You aren't the only one who's had shit happen to him. And as for what I've done for 'the movement', yes, it's very little. Before getting regular access to the internet about a year ago and typing 'mens rights' into a search engine I had no idea there was a men's movement as such. I though I was practically the only one who felt the way I did. You'd have though that in twenty years... (do stop me if that motif becomes tedious). So yes, I'm a latecomer to something that after... a good few years still doesn't seem to know what it's meant to be. Obviously I'm not entitled to an opinion or to say anything that the 'old guard' doesn't want to hear about itself - like just why has it been so totally fucking useless for so long and never asked itself that question? All I've done after one year is come up with the slogan 'Stop Hating Men', and the universalisable idea behind it, which some other idiot called Scott Garman has done something practical with. It isn't much, creating an idea which can be generalised to cover not only all existing men's issues but any that may yet arise. As I remarked to Scott in a private e-mail, I'm surprised nobody came up with the idea sooner. Too busy with other things, I guess.
Feel free to insult me in any and every way you like. Meanwhile I shall stifle my yawns because I would so hate to appear rude.
Kind regards*
Uberganger
(* amazingly, I'm not being sarcastic here)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday March 08, @11:55AM EST (#29)
|
|
|
|
|
“Not so long ago there was a thing going around called 'An Open Letter To The Men's Movement' written by a guy called Robert Sides, who claimed to have done more for the men's movement than anyone else. Like you, Ray, he was someone who'd spent twenty years (or was it thirty?) supposedly fighting on behalf of men, which was nice of him. Unfortunately he didn't seem to have achieved a great deal with it, and while I've heard the names of plenty of feminists and even a few 'masculinists' I'd never heard of this guy.”
of course you've never heard of him – you’re more interested in flapping your gums and playing bullyboy for your buds
like the vast majority of your cohorts, you can’t be bothered with doing any actual research or activism
so to cover your weakness you accuse those that have
“In many ways, Ray, you're like that Robert Sides guy.”
how do you know i’m like him, mein fuhrer? you have just stated that you’d “never heard of this guy”
you know nothing about me except what suits your rhetorical purpose
without sides and his fellow “whiners” there would be no uberganger, no nightmist, and no websites where sides and his “whiners” could be disparaged
“So, if I felt stupid it was my fault for putting myself in that position, not yours or Nightmist's for pointing out that those who are actually doing something don't need to be heckled by armchair activists”
even after the evidence is presented to you, you insist upon projecting your own cowardice and apathy onto the very persons whose blood and sweat allowed you a forum
fool and ingrate is a toxic combination
hey, why don’t we bash schenk and goldberg, too?
you guys are pitiful
RAY REMARK
(from his "armchair")
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday March 08, @12:35PM EST (#30)
|
|
|
|
|
go sumwere els and bitch crybaby weh weh weeeeeehhhhhhhhh i been around twenny years weh weh weeeehhhhh i know stuff weh weh weeeeeh why don u belief me weh weh weeeeehhhhhh
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday March 08, @12:57PM EST (#31)
|
|
|
|
|
yah, the "whiner" stuff is brilliant
funny tactic to find on a "men's activism" board -- it's been the male gag for over a generation now
stoke thy oven with breath foul, for you will burn in it
RAY REMARK
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday March 09, @08:43AM EST (#32)
|
|
|
|
|
weh weh weeeeeehhhhh i not real activist so i beat up others weh weh weeeeehhhhhh
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OK, Ray, so tell me what you've achieved.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
How's that for an unfortunate juxtaposition of postings in 'flat' mode?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Soldiers in time of war are in much more emotional stress than Yates ever was. They are in constant fear of being killed or disabled. They see their friends being killed and wounded. Yet, if after the shooting has stopped and enemy prisoners are subdued,they kill their prisoners, they are clearly guilty of murder. Such being the case, it is clearly the case to me that Yates must prove that she did not know what she was doing at the time that she killed her children and/or that she did not know that what she was doing was wrong. Merely stating that she had the condition of post partum depression is not enough. She, in actuality, faced significantly less stress than men in war who must live up to codes of conduct that forbid the aforementioned homicide of enemy prisoners. It appears to me that the standard of proof the she should be forced to use to prove her insanity defense is by "clear and convincing" evidence as to do otherwise would allow any person to over come possible conviction of a crime of violence based upon an insanity defense based on evidence unreasonably less probative than that which established that the defendant did commit the crime "beyond a reasonable doubt."
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
