|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Davidadelong on 10:07 PM November 25th, 2005 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, it is crazy, but then again they couldn't do it without the help of the wonderful justice department, you know the one that has branches in every state. So, even though the individual Women are at fault for being liars, and extortionists, the justice department deserves some credit for helping them get away with it, those tax dollars at work. Divide and........you know the rest.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The article suggests that it, depite the violation of men's rights caused by paternity fraud, that the violation is morally justified. All men's activists should consider the following application of Bernard Gert's two step procedure for justifying violations of moral rules.
For the impatient, I give the executive summary: even conceding every one of the points of the article, paternity fraud is at most weakly morally justified, as opposed to strongly morally justified, and therefore subject to moral judgment. This is because there are significant numbers of fully informed impartial rational persons who oppose paternity fraud. The only way for paternity fraud to be justified is if all fully informed impartial rational persons would want it common knowledge that the moral rules that paternity fraud violates are to be violated in the case of paternity fraud. I am assuming, with the author of the article, that paternity fraud is morally decidable.
There is no question that paterity fraud violates moral rules: the rule not to deprive others of freedom, the rule not to inflict pain, the rule don't deceive and the rule do not cheat. Violations of moral rules are permissible provided all fully informed rational persons would publically allow the violation.
In such a case we would say that the violation is strongly justified. Examples of strongly justified violations of moral rules include most surgical procedures; e.g., amputating a limb to save a life; this violates the rule "do not disable" (not to mention do not cause pain, and since anesthesia is most likely used, do not deprive of consciousness) but there is an adequate reason for violating this rule: saving a life. This example, is not controversial.
If, on the other hand, significant numbers of fully informed impartial rational persons are for paternity fraud, and significant numbers of fully informed impartial rational persons are against paternity fraud, then paternity fraud cannot be a strongly justified violation of moral rules.
Certain kinds of civil disobedience are examples of weakly justified violations of moral rules (such as obey the law, etc). Martin Luther King said that it shows the highest respect for the law to violate a law you consider unjust, and accept the punishment. King had a deep appreciation for the moral principles involved: since the violation is weakly justified (significant numbers of fully informed impartial rational persons want it to be public knowledge that a certain unjust law should be broken, and significant numbers of fully informed impartial rational persons want it to be public knowledge that the law be obeyed), anyone who commits an act of civil disobedience as a matter of conscience must nevertheless be subject to the moral judgment of those who disagree. Now this holds in a case where the moral controversy is not over the scope of morality, as in the case of abortion. There the controversy concerns beings that may or may not be considered impartially protected by morality. Significant numbers of persions say yes, and significant numbers of persons say no (up to the third trimester). Such disagreements are morally unresolvable in principle, and must be transferred to the legal and political system.
But in the case of paternity fraud, we have a line of argument that presupposes that matter is morally decidable in favor of the person who commits paternity fraud. And so, one can conclude, just from the assumption of moral decidability and the empirical fact that significant numbers of impartial rational persons are against paternity fraud, and conceding that significant numbers of impartial rational persons are in favor of paternity fraud, that paternity fraud cannot be strongly morally justified. A priori, the strongest argument in favor of paternity fraud can conclude at most that paternity fraud is weakly justified.
Now this conclusion may be insufficient for some men's activists, but already it is a significant step. In fact it completely undermines the feminist position that circumstances of putatively oppressed women justify the violation of moral rules that paternity fraud violates. Decisive unemotional arguments, even if admittedly weak (but note that I have not considered all of the morally relevant facts that may help paternity fraud victims) are needed. They, and not extremist rants, have the power to persuade the greatest number of people.
I urge all men's activists to get a copy of Bernard Gert's Common morality: deciding what to do. It forms the basis for this line of reasoning.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Davidadelong on 10:39 PM November 25th, 2005 EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
My goodness! I thought only attornies used a preponderence of words to confuse people, either you would want it done to you, or you don't. That is morality. I prefer to tell it like it is instead of trying to impress myself with lawyer ease.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My goodness! I thought only attornies used a preponderence of words to confuse people, either you would want it done to you, or you don't. That is morality.
No, that's not morality. That's a reason for a rational person to advocate that everyone else obey the moral rules with regard to himself, without that person committing to adopt them towards other people. A convicted and sentenced criminal might not want to be depived of freedom in prison--so what? The issue is whether the harm to victims of paternity fraud is justified. I ask you to entertain the possibility that this question must be addressed on its merits, in order it answer the feminists who hold that it is justified, because, as they contend, all women who commit it are "oppressed."
What you're saying sounds like the Golden Rule, but this is criticized in Gert's Morality versus Slogans, which I recommend as a good introduction to Gert's sophisticated descriptive account of common morality. I understand that the language may seem unfamiliar and even "lawyerly" but it is well worth mastering considering the stakes involved. No special aptitude is needed; only some willingness to persist and a little faith that the arguments are worth pursuing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Davidadelong on 09:10 AM November 26th, 2005 EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
Alas, the true reasoning behind your verbiage is to cloud unsure minds behind rhetoric, I have faith that the solution is worth optaining,the time for verbiage is over. We are either part of the solution, or we are not. I know which side I stand.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Utter nonsense. Don't assume that everyone is as unintelligent as you are.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Davidadelong on 11:58 AM November 26th, 2005 EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
I have had whole groups of people question my intelligence, and they failed. I find humor in your immature attempt at insulting me. But, you can't blame the lame for trying!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You forget that my remark comes after your silly comment that I am intending to obfuscate. Make an effort to use those neurons to read, and then have them formulate a relevant response.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Davidadelong on 05:29 PM November 26th, 2005 EST (#14)
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you for the advice, I do read, but shy away from propaganda. Let us all remember if it were left up to the intellectuals, we would still be arguing whether or not we should seperate from the king. I suggest you read our own history, and see who moved the earth, the intellectuals, or people who new what to do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I do read, but shy away from propaganda.
Good. Since gert's descriptive account of common morality is not propaganda, it should present no problem for you.
I suggest you read our own history, and see who moved the earth, the intellectuals, or people who new what to do.
I have. If you have a specific citation in the literature to illustrate your point, as I have provided citations (now I will provide a very specific link),
then perhaps that might shed some light on the thesis you are trying to articulate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Davidadelong on 09:00 PM November 26th, 2005 EST (#16)
|
|
|
|
|
I will explain something Wilf. I am one of those people that gets the big picture, at once. My ability has been documented. I long ago have found that the intellectual community sells out for glory and money. Glory being printed, and perhaps one day that persons idea will incite another. But since the beginning of recorded history the intellectuals have been controled by the elite of society, for the most part. The trick of not listening to a person unless he or she quotes someone else is nothing more than snobish elitism, placing yourself above others that have learned the truth for themselves. Just my opinion Wilf, no hard feelings. Have a nice day.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The trick of not listening to a person unless he or she quotes someone else is nothing more than snobish elitism, placing yourself above others that have learned the truth for themselves. Just my opinion Wilf, no hard feelings. Have a nice day.
I'm asking you to extend a courtesy to me that I have extended to you. The interpretation that I am somehow snobbishly elitist by providing you the means to check my statements is mistaken. Since you haven't provided a specific historical reference concerning intellectuals (or anything else), I'll provide one for you: Richard Hoftadter's "Anti-Intellectualism in American Life." So much for the theory that I'm not listening to you on account of some putative elitism.
Indeed, as your transcendent ability to instantaneously grasp the big picture has been documented, you will allow me the uncharacteristic immodesty to mention that at my similarly astronomical intellectual level, at which the need to emphatically not suffer fools gladly represents the most primitive evolutionary development, one can instead gladly suffer a vast company of fools with no perceptible diminution of cognitive functioning.
I do have work to do, however.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Davidadelong on 10:15 AM November 27th, 2005 EST (#19)
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you Wilf, but I have lived "Anti-Intellectualism in the American Life." I have never sold out. I too have much work to do, but I have actualy enjoyed our verbal spare, even had a few laughs along the way, from the belly!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Roy on 02:05 PM November 27th, 2005 EST (#20)
|
|
|
|
|
You know, I have been very impressed by how much better the general discourse has been now that apparently you cannot post anonymously hereabouts.
It's kind of like watching a bar fight in a slum in Islington, and then being magically transported to watch another pub fight in Manhattan.
The aggression is the same, but the fashion, style, and grammatical chops disguise the actual continuation of ancient male rituals!
Good stuff!
(And, nice to see that Kenny's not dead....)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Davidadelong on 03:46 PM November 27th, 2005 EST (#22)
|
|
|
|
|
I guess when it comes down to it, our actions will always speak louder than our words. I for one endeavor to make my thoughts and actions as one, why hide behind rhetoric. Thank you, for your thoughts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by A.J. on 11:52 AM November 26th, 2005 EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
As we all know, it's men who cause pregnancy. Women are, well, victims of pregnancy.
This reminds me of one of Glenn Sacks’ shows early this year. One of his guests was a prominent male feminist and the subject was choice for men. This guy repeatedly hung his hat on nature’s “far greater burden on women in the reproductive process" to support his positions.
He never once acknowledged that technology and politics has converted the “burden” into the right to exercise power over others. Nor did he point out that these reproductive burdens cannot legally be forced on any woman. And neither Glenn nor the other guest even questioned him on it.
I was very disappointed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That was Hugo Schwyzer. Schwyzer also argues, in effect, that violations of moral rules towards men are justified because they are always committed by oppressed women. However, Hugo Schwyzer does not understand common morality and has not employed the correct procedure for justifying violations of moral rules.
Again the a priori argument can be made that since significant numbers of persons would not publically allow the violations of men's rights in the manner that Hugo Schwyzer wants them to be violated, the claim of self-defense is insufficiently justified. This is assuming one doesn't have a morally undecidable issue. Often it seems that Hugo Schwyzer is arguing on ideological grounds.
There are essentially four sources of moral unresolvability:
1. disagreement over which beings, aside from moral agents (persons who understand what common morality requires, prohibits, encourages, discourages and allows) are impartially protected by morality (example: fetuses and animals);
2. rankings of various goods and evils;
3. estimates on harmful and benefical consequences that of violating a moral rule being common knowleged and of not violating a moral rule being common knowledge, based on ideological differences (this is a possibility with Hugo Schwyzer); and
4. the interpretation of a moral rule.
I suggest picking up a copy of Bernard Gert's Common Morality: deciding what to do in case any of the terms, such as "impartial" or "rational" are unfamiliar. The two-step procedure for justifying violations of moral rules is probably unfamiliar. It's worth knowing, because it helps to clarify the issues and avoid pointless ideological debates. One can ask if Hugo Schwyzer has satisfactorily followed the procedure for justifying what he considers acts of self-defense for male oppression. I think you'll find that he does not.
There are some people who might say, "why do I need to go through all of this?" My remarks aren't addressed to people who want to believe that I am attempting to obfuscate. That's mistaken. Men's rights activists have an opportunity to add a powerful intellectual tool to their arsenal: Gert's descriptive account of common morality.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Thundercloud on 12:48 PM November 26th, 2005 EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
Okay, I agree that the voices of children are not heard as often as they might be. But the voices of WOMEN are never heard???!!!???
What media are they watching??? We hear women's voices ALL THE TIME! and CONSTATLY!
Just watch Oprah Winfrey or any other talk show. All they ARE is WOMEN'S issues, gripes and concerns! Watch networks like "LIFETIME" or the "OXYGEN" network. NOTHING BUT women's voices. Watch ANY news outlet and 99.9% of what is aired is either geared towards women, women's points of views, women's health and women's issues.
Where are these outlets for MEN'S voices???!!???
Oh that's right...; THERE AREN'T ANY!!!
"Women's voices aren't heard."
Shut UP!
GOD!
Please excuse me I have an appointment to go bang my head against a wall...
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by A.J. on 01:30 PM November 26th, 2005 EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
"EVERYBODY WANTS TO BE A VICTIM. And the paradox is that victim status accrues precisely to those who can acquire enough clout to make others afraid of them. Victimhood has become one of the fruits of power. Anyone can be an underdog; the trick is to be a registered, pedigreed underdog."
--Joseph Belloc Sobran.
Feminists’ strategy dictates that they “educate” the public of the fact that they are "powerless and ignored". Of course, the "powerless and ignored" are able to force 4 decades of media saturation to get their message across. No irony there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Roy on 02:36 PM November 27th, 2005 EST (#21)
|
|
|
|
|
Propagandists and ideologues fear "irony" above all else.
Properly employed, irony reveals all the little lies in The Big Lie.
Irony benefits from having a sense of humor, but it depends most of all upon a certain level of intelligent insight and resistance.
Both humor and intellect are deadly to feminism.
Women used to be funny and smart and charming.
(Those qualities were in fact very powerful and liberating on an individual basis, if you were a funny, smart, charming female.)
Now women are deadly serious.
Facing men who increasingly discover them to be undesirable, modern women favor legislation rather than self-reflection as the best route to insuring a compliant masquerade of masculinity.
Emphasis on "deadly."
It's a damn shame Katherine Hepburn never became our first woman President!
Where are the classically classy women today?
(I know, I know .... shaking their lumps and humps in rap music videos!)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Thundercloud on 12:42 PM November 28th, 2005 EST (#24)
|
|
|
|
|
>")I know, I know .... shaking their lumps and humps in rap music videos!)"
Yep. "You've come a long way, baby...," *rolls eyes*
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Baniadam on 02:25 PM November 26th, 2005 EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
15 Women! She looked at 15 Women!!
Some were involved in open marriage and one gets the impression orgies.. WTF?? "Drugs & Alcohol"; it was not her fault she could not say no! Is this the norm?
Some (one) got raped and did not tell anyone. She gets raped & pregnant and didn't tell anyone about it until one assumes her husband divorced her. Why then? Is this the Norm?
Some were “minimal attached”. Minimal attached? I minimal attached to you.. I am dating you but attachment is minimal so I can shag as many men as I want in this period cause it minimal.
Some (one) had a single sexual relation with an old flame.
Some abortions were rejected by the partner. IT'S HER BODY! Isn’t it?? That is what feminists keep saying... it is your stupid mind that has the last call. YOU CHOOSE YOUR OWN PATH GROW UP & LIVE WITH IT!
She got a lot of "somes" done with these 15 women.
Where the blimming hell the she get these women from; the sewers. Did she pick the most pathetic of the punch of women she can lay her hands on? Oddly not one said that yeah fair and square I was a slut and cheated on my loving and caring husband. I screwed up big time! No, they oddly all had excuses.
“Of course, rejecting mandatory paternity testing at birth does not mean that men should not be assisted to accept the obligations of fatherhood in a more informed way. Upon the birth of a child, men ought to be given the opportunity to give one-time-only non-rescindable consent to their acceptance of the rights and responsibilities of fatherhood.”
Romance is truly dead & marriage has been asphyxiated with a rubber johnny.
Here’s a scenario:
Husband : “Honey, sweetie , love bunny; I want the baby to have a DNA test to make sure he’s mine”
Reaction One from wife who just been through a gruelling labour:
“Yeah Sure. No problems! You can never be sure these days. I am 99.34% sure he’s yours anyway.” In her mind she would be “Go ahead but don’t be surprised if my love for you for these doubts begins to DIE!”
Reaction Two from wife who just been through a gruelling labour:
“WTF! YOU SOB! You ^”&$(“…...blah blah blah.. Sign the paper or I want a divorce”
What a sorry state of affairs. So what happens when the child is his but he did not sign the paper! When he gets divorced does he have to still pay; remember he didn’t sign an obligation or responsibility for “fatherhood”.
What a dumb-ass intellectual.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Of course, rejecting mandatory paternity testing at birth does not mean that men should not be assisted to accept the obligations of fatherhood in a more informed way. Upon the birth of a child, men ought to be given the opportunity to give one-time-only non-rescindable consent to their acceptance of the rights and responsibilities of fatherhood. If they feel unable to sign on the dotted line without conclusive proof that they are the biological progenitor, they should be offered a DNA test free of charge.
However, once a man does formally accept social and legal responsibility for a child - either with knowledge of their genetic paternity or in the face of a fully informed waiver of that knowledge - their status as the child's legal father should rightly be set in stone. No DNA skeletons rattling out of the cupboards at a later date should affect what they legally owe their child or, hopefully, how they feel about the kid who calls him dad.
This seems fair to me, but it could be even more fair. It isnt absolutely necessary to insist on mandatory DNA testing in every case. But it is fair to fathers to provide it if they request it. What would seem more fair to me is this: if women are given the opportunity to seek abortions without informing the biological father or their husbands, than it seems reasonable that the "social" father be given the opportunity to requuest a DNA test without informing the mother, and without making it public knowledge that he refused to sign on the dotted line until after the results of a DNA test came in. If a man is supposed to give his legal consent to become the "social father," then his consent should be fully informed. And, as women may terminate a pregnancy without informing their husbands, the complementary courtesy should be extended to would-be fathers, who should be given the opportunity to request the results of a DNA test without the knowledge of a child's mother.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Davidadelong on 07:59 PM November 27th, 2005 EST (#23)
|
|
|
|
|
Wilf, I have to agree with you. Since all to many times having a child is an adversarial situation, your last statement would be actually more fair in todays current times.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In "Common Morality: Deciding What to Do," author and philosopher Bernard Gert acknowledges what many contemporary thinkers do not: that abortion may affect the expectant father. On page 139, paragraph 2 of Common Morality, Gert writes,
"It is absolutely clear that the fetus should be impartially protected from harm by anyone other than the pregnant woman. If the woman does not want her fetus killed, then it is immoral to kill it. To kill it is to harm the woman who does not want her fetus to be killed. However, if it is the pregnant woman herself who wants the fetus aborted, then, with the possible exception of the expectant father, no moral agent is being harmed when the fetus is aborted."
Note that the fetus is not a moral agent, which is a person who knows what common morality requires, prohibits, encourages, discourages and allows. Therefore, an aborted fetus is not among the moral agents that are harmed (which is not to deny that the fetus is harmed: it is), though the expectant father may be.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The reason I mention this is that some people here have hurled the slur "propaganda" apparently against Gert's work. This is ironic, on account of the great clarifying potential Gert's work has to offer MRAs, and in view of his acknowledgement of the moral status of the expectant father, in contrast to virtually every other mainstream contemporary thinker on the subject.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
That's rights, folks, you heard it here first. Paternity fraud is committed because of (among other things) "The threat of sexual violence or shaming..." I swear, this confused piece of crackpot sociology might outdo even the best of my Sweetie Pie, Moaning Dud. Ooops, I mean Maureen Dowd.