Romantic-Comedy Behavior Gets Real-Life Man Arrested

[supergee]

Or at least it should.

Comments

[amyvanhym]

Who is anyone to speak for the ways individual women and men choose play the dating game together?

To make a case, an argument, a demonstration, a plea, is not to "refuse to accept that a woman has a right to leave you." It is the opposite, as to make a case is to accept that one ought to bother making a case. This writer is degrading the sorts of acts of hope, love and optimism that make life worth living; for goodness sake, she is morally equating a romantic plea with a punch in the face. Please tell me this is a joke piece. Please tell me I'm being trolled. This is completely unhinged and hateful.

.

[johnpalmer]

"Choose" is one of the issues here. Her choice isn't respected. And while it's cute to imagine a public scene in a movie where someone does something humiliating to show how important someone is, this isn't a movie - there's no author, there's no director to tell her "now, you aren't happy to see him, but deep down, you do like him, you're just afraid of The Issue, and possibly the MacGuffin."

I haven't read the article - I don't know if the moral equivalence you describe is made clear, or if you, or the article's author is engaging in hyperbole.

But lots of things in fiction don't work in real life without an author to control the outcome. Stalking behavior works in the movies because the author can force the woman not to take outlandish behavior as vaguely or explicitly threatening.

[amyvanhym]

The writer says her choice isn't respected, but it clearly IS respected, and I see you haven't bothered supporting your own claim here. And while films are fiction, they are meaningful because they contain elements of reality. Plenty of cute things in movies are still cute in reality without being artifical -- are in fact much more cute in reality because they are genuine rather than artificial. That they can work in reality is the reason they work in movies at all. Your argument about movies doesn't make any sense: it's as though you're arguing that artificiality is a virtue.

Again, the author morally equated a romantic plea with a punch in the face. Read the article. How can you make a claim like "Her choice isn't respected" without having read the article? Why did you bother replying to me at all?

It doesn't seem to me that you know enough about life, fiction or human behaviour to make meaningful claims about the way they function and interrelate.

.

[johnpalmer]

Let's see: the writer says her choice is not respected, but it clearly is:

On Saturday, the Bristol Post reported the story of how a 34-year-old man was intending to play one of the city’s public pianos in order to “win” back his ex girlfriend.

Call me crazy, but:
"he did X to win back his

EX-

girlfriend suggests to me that her choice, not to be his girlfriend, is not being respected.

You are correct, I didn't support a claim that was prima facie true. Since prima facie wasn't clear enough, I have now supported it. Does that make you happier?

To take your points in order:
1) There are many things in fiction that work, because of the artificiality - an author could have forced me to shut down all critical thinking facilities, and been convinced by your argument - or, could have made you realized that "oh, right, 'I am not your girlfriend' is, in fact, a choice", because i explained the issue to you. But neither happened - no author, just two indepdendent human beings.

2) I am not arguing artificiality is a virtue; I'm drawing from how Socrates argued in Gorgias; I'm arguing that fictional cuteness is a knack, and a knack of the worst sort because it can make something *bad* appear *good*. This doesn't mean things can't be cute - merely that things that do appear cute in fiction might not be cute in reality, and might, in fact, be terrible.

(In Gorgias, Socrates deemed rhetoric a knack, of the worst sort, because it can make a bad argument appear good - he equated it with cooking, which would suggest that fresh, hot-from-the-frier, strings of starchy, fat coated, crisp-on-the-outside, meltaway-on-the-inside French fries might not be as good for you as stewed kale, yet be far more pleasant to eat. Note that he was not condemning rhetoric or cooking overall - merely refusing to accept them as grand "arts" that were good in and of themselves. The same cooking that makes good french fries can make an excellent soup or stew with kale - or recognizes that blanching before stewing will reduce bitterness, etc..)

3) One choice is clearly not respected - you have yet to support your own statement that any choice was. What choice was respected?

4) Grand, romantic gestures are cute when there is consent, or at least a strong reason to expect consent (on an early date, during initial, productive flirtation, or, obviously, in an established relationship where such things might happen and be seen as happymaking); you can't count on "cute" when consent has been explicitly been withdrawn. There are a lot of things that are cute and fun with consent that are horrifying without it.

5) various states of desire, consent (or its lack), and conflicts between them, do, in fact, require knowledge of life; in fiction, these can be papered over, regardless of how a real person might think/feel/act in that situation. Before pointing to other people's lack in that area, perhaps you should think on them yourself?

6) A behavior that scares the blazes out of a person can, in fact, be the moral equivalent of a punch in the face. I have received "a punch in the face;" and I know someone who has been might get over the pain quickly, but still be anxious and hypervigilant and have a sense that one's world has been turned upside down for a while. I don't find the comparison too far out of line. I've never been a woman who has to recognize that an acquaintance might try to rape me, and fear that I can't fight back. As such, I can't say that the analogy isn't spot on perfect! But I can, at a minimum, say it's not too far out of line - possibly exaggerated, but in a fair manner.

[amyvanhym]

You're not in touch with reality. Relationships are not authoritarian systems and breakups aren't inherently permanent. People get back together sometimes, often by one person winning over the other person. Making a demonstration, a plea, a display of affection, is an argument. Arguments inherently respect the thoughts and choices of the addressed party. They are the way we work out our differences and disputes. If he didn't respect her choice, he wouldn't bother making an argument. He would just take her -- threaten her, kidnap her, assault her, strongarm her, etcetera. I addressed this in fewer words in my very first comment.

I'm reluctant to bother with the rest of your points because you don't seem like someone who can be reasoned with, so I'll take the middle path and try to keep it short.

A writer who needs to "force" parts of a story is not a good writer. Forced writing is bad writing because it does not reflect reality/reasonableness. Forced writing does not work. Artificiality and "papering over" work against quality storytelling. It appears you are misinterpreting the way stories work in order to excuse your own failure to accept human realities, especially the way complexity, agency and communication work between equals in relationships.

People do not require "consent" to make arguments or pleas. They are only expressing themselves. It is authoritarian and degrading to expect someone to ask permission to express himself. Further, a breakup in itself is not a withdrawal of consent to be won back. That is something that happens internally. A person who does not want to be won back will not be won back. The end.

That someone might be frightened does not mean they necessarily have good reason to be frightened, nor that their fear is someone else's responsibility. A behaviour that scares a reasonable person might be interpreted as a threat, but a threat still isn't the same thing as a punch in the face, and certainly isn't a moral equivalent.

Aand, now the conversation has moved to "rape." Ridiculous. Reasonable women don't look at their acquaintances through rape-hysteria goggles, indoctrinated women do. If you want to help women, stand up against feminist efforts to terrorize them.

[johnpalmer]

You're not in touch with reality...I'm reluctant to bother with the rest of your points because you don't seem like someone who can be reasoned with,

Note that I think you're wrong - but I'm not the one throwing insults, other than insofar as mocking the failure to notice a choice that was not respected is vaguely insulting - but that, only after you showed no comprehension of it, and insulted me.

Your claim, that anything short of kidnap, assault, and other uses of force is merely an "argument" isn't a good one. Let me bring out an analogy:

If a mobster says "this is a nice place; it would be a shame if anything bad happened to it. Now, my associates and I help protect small businesses like yours..." that is understood to be an implicit threat. Right now, we could use the reasoning you just used to say it was only an "argument" and not an implicit threat. We could also state that the mobster "respects" the choice, not to pay protection money, because an "argument" is being made against it.

Feel free to deny that: I could use a good laugh, and hearing disagreement on that point from someone saying I'm not in touch with reality would be *really* funny!

Now, that was an analogy, not a claim of of equivalence - nevertheless, through broad, unqualified statements, you've invited this analogy. With careful thinking, and a bit of sharpening up, you could recognize the risk - but I'm sure that your failure is all my fault, somehow(/irony)

You reference "equals" in a relationship - but there is no "relationship" as the term is often used in the vernacular regarding this situation, because a person has ended it. That choice has been "accepted" but although that rhymes with "respected" that's about where the evidence for respect of choice ends, and argument by rhyme only works in rap. (Sorry - I don't *make* the rules!)

You are correct that, insofar as there is a first amendment, the government can't forbid a person from making an "argument" when they do not have the consent of the target, so long as the "argument" doesn't represent a breach of the peace, and occurs in appropriate surroundings (in a public park, okay; in the woman's bedroom, were he not invited there, not okay). You seem bound and determined to assert, without evidence, that the making of the argument is therefore innocuous and non-harmful. Lots of things are not illegal; that doesn't make them right.

That someone might be frightened does not mean they necessarily have good reason to be frightened, nor that their fear is someone else's responsibility

That is correct. You are not, however, presenting evidence that this is a case where a person *should* not be frightened, nor are you showing that even if a person is frightened, it is not the concern of the person who is providing the proximate cause of fear.

You seem to be unable to grasp that, even if "not all X are Y", you can't make a blanket claim that "no X is Y".

Were you asserting that we can't be sure that this person, in these circumstances, was doing something horribly wrong, I'd agree with you - the discussion would be going in a very different direction, then. But that's not the assertion you made.

Re: a threat is not the moral equivalent of a punch in the face; you've lost all credibility. There are some threats far worse than A punch in the face. (The capitalization was deliberate, and used for emphasis of the uniqueness of the event.) There are certainly punches in the face far worse than certain threats. If you can't reason your way through that, and see that it is, in fact, an obviously true statement, don't bother continuing the discussion. (But I'll see if I can score you some finger paints if you need to keep busy.)

Finally, I see that in your last paragraph a whine about your own perceptions: "feminist efforts" terrorize women, presumably causing unreasonable women to look at their acquaintances through "rape-hysteria" goggles.

Are you actually saying that "no women can fear the future behavior of any man, without being unreasonable"? I sure hope not. At that point, I can't offer you finger paints; I'm not sure I'm even safe offering you crayons and a coloring book!

You could argue that, although this *could* be a case, in which a reasonable woman *might* see reason to fear the future intentions of a person who *might* be unstable; that we aren't sure this person is unstable, or that their past behavior gave this woman reason to be afraid.

If that were the argument you made (and it wasn't), I would be forced to agree - this particular situation might not present a cause for fear. That wouldn't mean that a person couldn't write an article about the general case. But at least you'd be making a reasonable counter-argument.

But sight unseen, we don't know that. We only know that someone is going to extreme, extra-ordinary behavior to reverse a decision that is not respected. And while I'll grant that there are certainly times when it wouldn't be threatening, that's not the argument you've presented. In fact, to suggest that it would be threatening is "unhinged and hateful" - your words.

Your argument is not that "we've heard all this before, and it's a bit overblown" - your argument is not "okay, I can see if someone freaked out, but maybe this was a weird, goofy person with decent intentions." Your argument was far stronger than either of those - and that's why it's so poorly thought out, and so completely incorrect.

Now: I have chronic fatigue, and engaging with a person whom I outclass (in competence, and class) today was a pleasant interlude. But I have actual work to do, so, please feel free to respond with more foolishness, and proclaim victory when I find your argument unworthy of addressing, okay?

[amyvanhym]

>"Your claim, that anything short of kidnap, assault, and other uses of force is merely an "argument" isn't a good one."

That's not my claim. I also said 'threaten' and 'strongarm,' terms for force and threat of force both physical and non-physical. I used these words directly at the start and end of the list you quoted, but you left them out, misrepresenting (strawmanning) me in a way that I can't imagine was not deliberate, due to the close proximity of the part you acknowledged and the part you ignored, as well as the fact that your 'mobster threat' analogy depends on my not having said 'threaten' in order to work at all. This is clear enough evidence of bad faith engagement that I have no reason to believe you have anything to teach me, nor that you are willing to learn anything from me. Doubly so as your likening of a romantic display to a mobster's threat shows an absolutely laughable inability to assess intent, and triply as you reduce matters of moral eqivalence to the ranked quantitative, ignoring that there are different types of bad actions in strategy and effect preventing equivalence, which suggests you lack a whole dimension of thinking capacity. And that's just after a quick glancing-over, which is much more than this pompous mountain of distortion and hostile conjecture deserves. I am not going waste any more of my time trying to dispel a crazy and closed-minded stranger's cartoonish misanthropy. Tootle-oo.

.

[johnpalmer]

Thank you! I knew you'd declare yourself right, but I *never* imagined you'd go so far as to call the mobster's *DELIBERATE* use of language that elides the threat, while allowing clear inference, to be a "threat". That was delightful.

I have lost the ability toucan

[amyvanhym]

[amaebi]

Boy, you are so right.

[legionseagle]

For further background, it's worth checking the comments under the Bristol Post's Facebook link to the story, in which numerous people step up and suggest that the piano player in question has exploited and damaged a string of women, and is being pursued for child support by at least one of them. "Manipulative narcissist runs true to type" would apparently have been a better headline.