First, let me start out by apologizing for not having this up by Monday as I’d promised. Sunday night, all cable went out at my house, and they couldn’t get here to fix it until late yesterday afternoon. However, since they were supposed to call us if something opened up sooner, I stuck around the house, hoping and praying. Unfortunately, nada.
However, it’s also given me time to think about this comment I got a short time ago. It wasn’t published as a comment, and I’ll explain why in a moment. The important thing here is to remember that some people are so bothered by the idea of men acting like men, they’ll lash out at anyone who won’t toe the line like a good little FIM.
This comment was made on my post, Provider, Protector, and Professor. The Role of Men Part 1: The Protector, which is important as you’ll see in a moment.
This is the worst piece of writing I have ever encountered. Not only is full of logical fallacies, it concludes by, essentially, arguing that men commit violence against any threat against their family or die. This kind of disgusting rhetoric supports murderous gun violence. Also, my dear man, you are not stronger than most women I’ve met. Perhaps you should adopt more “feminine” and intellectual solutions to your problems instead of supporting violence as the one and only solution for the “manly protector.”
Now, let’s dissect this piece by piece, starting with the reason it wasn’t published. Simply put, after accusing me of making numerous logical fallacies, the author promptly engages in ad hominem by claiming I am so physically weak–because I make no claims about emotional or psychological strength in that piece, only physical–that I can’t even match up with an average woman. This individual who posted under the name “John Smith” has shown their hypocrisy right off the bat.
Hence my refusal to allow the post to stand on its own.
Now, the piece by piece fisking of this stupid.
This is the worst piece of writing I have ever encountered. Not only is full of logical fallacies, it concludes by, essentially, arguing that men commit violence against any threat against their family or die.
Any actual threat warrants an appropriate response. Violence is usually the appropriate response.
I’m sorry you don’t like that answer, but it doesn’t negate the reality.
However, it’s also worth noting that threats aren’t mean words you dislike. A threat is a specific indication that someone intends to harm you or yours and has the means and opportunity to do so.
If I say I’m going to beat your butt via the internet, but I don’t even know who you are, that’s not a threat. It’s bluster.
Now, if I were in your face and saying the same thing, then you’d have a threat.
So what do you do?
Well, yes, walking away isn’t always inappropriate. Especially when the person making the threat isn’t talking about an intent to kill or maim you. The guy in the bar talking about kicking your ass isn’t intending to murder you in cold blood, after all, and most of us know that it’ll be a different story in the morning.
However, what do you do when someone intends to harm you or your family? Not some drunk in a bar who thinks you were checking out his girlfriend, but someone who literally hates you and wants to destroy you?
That’s where violence comes in.
Yes, you can call the police about the threat, but if you can do that, it’s often because the individual making the threat is lacking the opportunity. If a guy is intending to harm you or your family and is right there, you do not have time to call the police and expect them to show up in time to do anything but deal with a crime scene.
Don’t like it? Tough. That’s the reality.
This kind of disgusting rhetoric supports murderous gun violence.
No, it doesn’t, and anyone who thinks that saying, “Defend yourself and your family” supports “murderous” anything is a freaking moron.
Murder is the act of taking someone’s life unlawfully. In other words, defending yourself–an act legal in the vast majority of the Western world–is not murder. We might get into some murky water in defining when you’re defending yourself based on individual states’ laws, but defending yourself is a morally just act that is also lawful.
Hence, it’s not murder.
Now, is it gun violence? Yep. However, violence is neither inherently good nor inherently bad. It is simply a term we use to describe certain acts with a high potential to cause harm to someone. If I use violence to protect my family, I’m going to argue it’s a good thing in this instance.
Murder, however, isn’t justifiable in the vast majority of instances. Sure, there are exceptions (the battered wife who kills her husband in his sleep because she’s so terrified of him, perhaps), but it’s not the rule.
Frankly, anyone who thinks supporting self-defense and defense of one’s family is murder is a complete and total moron.
Or maybe I’m being unfair to morons.
Also, my dear man, you are not stronger than most women I’ve met.
Now we get to the ad hominem portion of our evening.
Seriously, notice this nice little twist here? Most women he’s met…but he’s never met me so far as I know, and if he has, he’s led a weirdly sheltered life…if he’s is actually a “he” in the first place, something I doubt.
As noted above, this is only about physical strength, and the above-linked post lays out my evidence. “John Smith” does not actually dispute this, but instead simply claims that most women he’s met are stronger than me.
Now, unless he’s primarily known world-class female weight lifters, power lifters and perhaps bodybuilders, I seriously doubt he’s remotely accurate in this. As noted in the post, the average woman is physically weaker than the average man. Period. Why this is so threatening to some people is beyond me.
The truth is, I believe that Mr. Smith here is lying. Of course, that’s easy to point out since so far as I know, I’ve never met Mr. Smith, so he has no idea how strong I am or am not. He doesn’t know how much I can bench, squat, or anything else. Instead, he’s simply engaging in ad hominem, trying to score some cheap victory by telling the evil man that he’s not much of a man.
Unfortunately, his opinion of me is nothing more to me than some blog fodder.
Perhaps you should adopt more “feminine” and intellectual solutions to your problems instead of supporting violence as the one and only solution for the “manly protector.”
Yes, because talking it out works so well when someone is trying to break into your house, or someone is holding a knife on you and demanding some time with your wife.
Honestly, it’s like Mr. Smith here ate paint chips as a kid.
When the hell else does my family really need a protector? Oh, someone said something mean about my wife or my kids? I shouldn’t beat them up? Who said I was? It wasn’t me.
People don’t need protecting from mean words after all. They don’t need protecting from things that won’t actually harm them, for crying out loud.
They need protecting from people who want to hurt them, possibly kill them, and you think that’s a good time to reason with people?
Go right ahead. It’s a good way to make sure you don’t post moronic things on my blog in the future.
After all, while you’re trying to talk to the person who just broke into your home with the intent to rape your wife and murder you and your kids, do you really expect them to see the error of their ways in that moment and repent of all their sins?
If so, you’re a bigger moron than I thought.