From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Guilty?
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 18:06:22 GMT
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

In  <Bw2C9z.54I@cs.psu.edu>  beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
> In article <1992Oct12.184025.97821@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com writes
> >In  <Bvzn2E.GAo@cs.psu.edu>  beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
> >> In article <1992Oct11.173632.97990@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com wri
> >> >In  <Bvv5FC.FvE@cs.psu.edu>  beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
> >> >>
> >> >> Janis Cortese wrote the following on soc.women (moderated):
> >> >>
> >> >> ===   If I had a kid and someone threatened it, I'd slit their
> >> >> ===   throat wide open and drink their blood with a smile in my face.
>
> >> First, several people chose to interpret Mr. Steeves' posting literally;
> >> would these same people grant the benefit of the doubt only to women
> >> who make violent statements?
> >
> >I *did* interpret that she'd kill the attacker literally.
>
> You thought she might "slit their throat wide open and drink their
> blood with a smile in [her] face"?

Didn't you read what I wrote?  "That she'd kill" is what I interpreted
literally.

> If Will's ex said, "I'll kill you if you tell anyone," would you
> accept that as literal?

Nope.  But if she said "I'll kill you if you try to rape me," I would.

> >> Second, it seems quite reasonable from his posting that he objected to
> >> far more than "not showing the proper respect"
> >
> >It's clear that he also objected to the abortion, but the difference in
> >the two scenarios was waiting a year before telling him, *not* getting
> >or not getting the abortion.
>
> What about "throwing salt in the wounds" -- ie., mental cruelty?

What about it?  You keep bringing it up, but I've seen no evidence of it.

> And, by taking the "mathematical" difference between the cases,
> do you wish to imply that the abortion was not a factor in the
> worse case?  In other words, because the abortion issue was the same
> in both cases, it must have played +no+ part?

I never suggested that.  His words implied that the abortion itself was
an *equal* factor in both cases.

> >> Since certain persons have accepted explicitly violent statements from
> >> women as figurative,
> >
> >Note again:  I accepted the *violence* as literal; it was the "drink their
> >blood with a smile in my face" that I interpreted figuratively.
>
> Did you accept "slit their throat wide open" as literal?

It rather depends on what she had available to protect her hypothetical
child against a hypothetical threat, doesn't it?

> >> Since those persons who complained seem to have an outspoken agenda,
> >> it is no great surprise that they concluded only "respect" was at issue
> >
> >No great surprise, considering that his words were:
>
> [turning away from your emphasis and toward mine:]
  [adding back the critical line]
   #if the woman had *not* been so respecting as to tell me before,
> >#but in fact had not only told me right afterwards, but had waited a year (!)
>                   ^^^^^^^^                           ^^^
>
> "Not only X but Y," as I've said, usually implies that Y is different
> either in magnitude or character from X.  You chose to assume it was
> only different in magnitude, ie. "greater disrespect."

I'm only going by what he said.

> You chose to rule out any mental cruelty in waiting a year
> and then throwing "salt in the wounds."

You're the one that's adding an assumption of "mental cruelty" and
"throwing salt in the wounds".

> >> considering why she might have waited a year to "throw salt in the wounds,"
> >
> >Since you seem to have an outspoken agenda, it's no great surprise that
> >you assume she waited a year in order to throw salt in the wounds, rather
> >than simply not telling him because she knew it would upset him (or because
> >she knew that (a hypothetical) he was deranged and actually *would* try to
> >kill her if he found out), and it happened to come out a year later.
>
> I assume no such thing,

Then why do you keep suggesting that that's her motive?

> It's clear that there are a lot of possibilities.  I'd give her the
> benefit of the doubt if we were discussing why she would have waited
> a year and whether we should regard it as a despicable act.
>
> At the same time, I'd give Will the benefit of the doubt,

I give Will the benefit of the doubt, too, as to whether he actually
would kill his SO if he found out a year later that she had gotten
an abortion.  Nevertheless, I find the evidence that there exists
people who feel so strongly regarding their "right" to control the
body of another person to be a compelling argument against *forcing*
notification of the father.
Organization: Engineering Design Research Center, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA