Romantic-Comedy Behavior Gets Real-Life Man Arrested

[supergee]

Or at least it should.

Comments

[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]