Monday, March 4, 2013

Intent is a Fargument

Yesterday I became aware of a recent philosophical debate that has flared up blogs, forums, and tempers. In the process of investigating this subject, I came to the realization that it was not even an argument - it was a fargument. Allow me to explain:

If a person makes an offensive comment to another person, yet the words were spoken with a pure heart, is that person still blameworthy for causing emotional harm? There have been some blog wars on this topic. I read three blogs and one forum discussion on this topic. First, I read Justin Vacula’s Blame and Intent, then I read Kinsey Hope’s Intent! It’s Fucking Magic. I read an Atheism Plus thread posted originally by Ginny: Intent is not magic, an Introductory Text, and finally finished with the Skakesville, Harmful Communication Part One: Intent Is Magic, written by Melissa McEwan. After reading the blogs, I slumped over on the sofa and fell right to sleep.


Let’s keep the argument brief. The feminists and Atheism Plusers argue that intent does not matter, if someone says something hurtful to another person, whether they knew it or not, that person is still a bad person. Actually, bad person is not the language these ladies are using. Kinsey Hope refers to them as, “privileged fuckjobs, privileged asshole, and privileged fuckery.” I wish these angry women would use the F-bomb in a Biden sort of way, but we know that a sense of humor is in short supply these days.  In a follow-up post, Kinsey Hope stated. “This post pretty clearly is lambasting the usage of intent as a way to avoid accountability or to claim that you didn’t hurt anyone.” (See Image Below) Based upon the evidence presented, we can infer that Kinsey Hope is saying that sometimes men will say something very hurtful, and then claim that they did not actually hurt anyone because they did not intend to hurt anyone.

In all of my years on planet earth, I have never once met a person who made that argument. I have never known a person who actually – seriously – believed that emotional hurt does not exist unless there is mens rea. Emotional harm is now a strict liability crime, one is guilty even if they did not know they were saying something bad.

Justin Vacula responds to this argument, stating that sometimes people are unaware that their words are hurtful. Some people lack mental capacity, education, and some people have not been properly socialized. Sometimes, there are cultural misunderstandings at play.

If someone could not possibly know — for whatever reason — that a particular behavior may be construed as offensive, it is inappropriate to assign blame to that individual.

In the Atheism Plus Forum, the author made an analogy: “it's like you've accidentally slammed someone's hand in a car door, and then you stand there explaining that you didn't mean to do it, while their hand is still caught in the door.” That is a nice analogy - only I have never - never, never, never heard anyone EVER use that argument before.


In previous posts, I said that some of the feminists create arguments, defeat their own fake arguments, then congratulate themselves on being masters of the universe. Urban Dictionary has a definition for this behavior, it is called farguing. These women are getting angry over a fake argument.  Take a look at the test below, and tell me honestly if this is something you encounter once in a blue moon.

John Doe, “Hey you filthy #%%#, come over here and clean my shoes.”
Victim, “I am hurt and offended you called me a filthy #%%#.”
John Doe, “Oh, well you are not hurt because I did not intend on hurting you." - Ta Da, Win For Me

I think that discussing whether or not intent matters is important because we live in a world diverse world, where people can, and will, be offended by things they see and hear. If you study criminal law, work in law, or live in a society then you need to understand what your obligations are to other people. You also need to understand that intent does play a critical role when determining if someone is guilty or innocent of a crime. Even though these women have once again, constructed an amazing fargument that has already leeched away time and energy that could be devoted to more important things, truth be told, understanding intent and liability is important for everyday life.

Their intent is magic argument is another fake argument created by these women so that they can continue being the victim. I also find their argument very manipulating. Let me put it this way, remember when the Republicans were filling the airways with disturbing partial birth abortion back in the late 90s? They made partial birth abortion hot topic to so that people would have an emotional reaction, and be duped into thinking that abortion needed a lot more regulation. The fact, is that most abortions happen by aspiration – in the first trimester – when it is a lump of cells smaller than my little toe. Partial Birth Abortions are very rare, and happen only when it is almost certain the infant will die. So, why take something so rare and put it on the front page of every newspaper? To get attention, plug heart strings, and manipulate - that's why. Words become weapons, weapons become a message, and that message become reality until people smarten up, look at the statistics, and realize that it was all a word game. 

Kinsey Hope is saying that sometimes men will say something very hurtful, and then claim that they did not actually hurt anyone because they did not intend to hurt anyone. Okay: produce the names and contact information for these men who make this argument. Let's hear it from them. If these men are real, then these ladies will be able to back up their claims with evidence. 

Unless one is a complete sociopath, they are aware that other people experience emotions. It is hard for me to take sides in a fargument. In one sense, Justin Vacula is right that that the appropriate and charitable response is to give others the benefit of the doubt. Be open-minded. I am leaning in his direction. Yet, how can I seriously entertain an argument that belongs on Seinfeld, an argument these women completelytotallyabsolutely made up.

1 comment:

  1. The Plussers seem to be rather focused on the subject of intent lately--I've seen several rather specious attempts to indict men as "patriarchal" even if they didn't intend to be part of the "patriarchy". It seems to be the first step in their new push to justify unattenuated misandry.



COMMENT POLICY: Freedom of Expression is given to those who stand up for what they are saying, not hiding behind anonymity. You must be a registered user, with a link to your Facebook page/ Youtube account/ or other social network where I can verify your identity.

Anonymous People: Your posts will automatically be deleted, and I WILL NOT EVEN READ THEM.