Domestic Violence

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
21

[quote]frontsite wrote:
If domestics violence includes this offensive contact clause, wouldn’t Ray Rice’s wife had been guilty of domestic assault? Didn’t she get up in his face first? And if she merely bumped into Ray, that’s assault. [/quote]

If she spat at him, that’s absolutely assault and the initiation of force.
Obviously what he did likely went far beyond self-defense, so minimum she would be prosecuted and possible both.
The problem however, is that in most domestic violence cases it’s impossible to determine who the initiator of violence was and in the other half of cases it’s about equal between men and women.

22

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]Brett620 wrote:
Should the police prosecute on behalf of a victim when the victim DOES NOT want to prosecute??[/quote]

Absolutely not. Domestic violence should be treated like any other violence(I also oppose prosecuting the offender in shootings, stabbings, etc. with a victim that doesn’t want to do so). [/quote]

Why? If the offence takes place in public then haven’t they also committed an offence against the public? You know, “affray”.[/quote]

Even if we agree that the “public” is a real entity, then what damage was done to it? We have a “victim” that does NOT want the “offender” prosecuted, so we are left with punishing the “offender” for the damage he did to the “public,” right? [/quote]

Who says there needs to be a quantifiable damage done? Just because Murray Rothbard said so doesn’t make it so. Rothbard also said parents have a right to let their children starve to death because forcing the parent to feed them would violate the parents’ rights. It is in everyone’s interest to curtail reckless behaviour that endangers others even when no actual harm occurs. [/quote]

Well actually you are taking this out of context as Rothbard said that in the context of legal protections related to property rights. In terms of ethics and the non-aggression principal the aforementioned case would be homicide obviously.

Children are essentially prisoners within the home of the adult parents.

They didn’t choose their home or parents and cannot be held accountable with physical abuse.
People who verbally degrade or physically abuse their children are the basest of evil.

Doing this in the guise of punishment and defending parents who do is just as horribly immoral.

23

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]Brett620 wrote:
Should the police prosecute on behalf of a victim when the victim DOES NOT want to prosecute??[/quote]

Absolutely not. Domestic violence should be treated like any other violence(I also oppose prosecuting the offender in shootings, stabbings, etc. with a victim that doesn’t want to do so). [/quote]

Why? If the offence takes place in public then haven’t they also committed an offence against the public? You know, “affray”.[/quote]

Even if we agree that the “public” is a real entity, then what damage was done to it? We have a “victim” that does NOT want the “offender” prosecuted, so we are left with punishing the “offender” for the damage he did to the “public,” right? [/quote]

Who says there needs to be a quantifiable damage done? Just because Murray Rothbard said so doesn’t make it so. Rothbard also said parents have a right to let their children starve to death because forcing the parent to feed them would violate the parents’ rights. It is in everyone’s interest to curtail reckless behaviour that endangers others even when no actual harm occurs. [/quote]

Well actually you are taking this out of context as Rothbard said that in the context of legal protections related to property rights. In terms of ethics and the non-aggression principal the aforementioned case would be homicide obviously.

Children are essentially prisoners within the home of the adult parents.

They didn’t choose their home or parents and cannot be held accountable with physical abuse.
People who verbally degrade or physically abuse their children are the basest of evil.

Doing this in the guise of punishment and defending parents who do is just as horribly immoral.[/quote]

No I’m not taking it out of context. I suggest you check your own notes. You haven’t learned your chosen ethical philosophy. Rothbard argued from the first principle that law must only be based on negative rights. He specifically stated that a parent can withhold food or shelter from their child and allow them to starve or freeze to death and the law should not sanction them for doing so. And you didn’t answer my questions in the other thread.

24

[quote]Brett620 wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:
(I also oppose prosecuting the offender in shootings, stabbings, etc. with a victim that doesn’t want to do so). [/quote]

So I assume you are against murder prosecutions unless the victim presses charges.
[/quote]

Clever reply, but incorrect(and, truthfully, not all that clever-a victim that DOES NOT WANT TO press charges is obviously different than a victim that CAN NOT press charges). If someone’s life is taken(or the extent of one’s injury is such that they are no longer able to make or communicate decisions), then I’m okay with assuming that the person would NOT have consented to such(if he wanted death, he would have killed himself). Of course, if a person was to consent to being killed, while alive and conscious of what he’s consenting to, then I am okay with allowing the person to be killed(I don’t believe Jack Kevorkian to be a criminal…and wouldn’t think of him as such even if he had shot the people that wanted to die in their heads instead of just assisting them with suicide).

What I was talking about was more of a fight that results in one party being cut a couple of times, that person going to the hospital, the hospital calling for police response, and the police having to work the case, despite the “victim” obviously not wanting to pursue the matter. I have a feeling that Brett can verify how common such situations are. I don’t think police need to be helping either people that don’t want to help themselves(many domestic violence “victims”), people that don’t want to cooperate because they are afraid of blowback, or people that would just rather deal with a couple of cuts than to have to go to court.[/quote]

It happens all the time. Mostly with the complainants being neighbors and roommates.

And not only is there the law when dealing with domestics, but you also have departmental policy. Our General Orders actually stipulate that that with domestics, “The preferred response is arrest.” And often in practice, probable cause is not even the standard. It’s reasonable suspicion. If police DO NOT make a arrest (and with a DV misdemeanor, they have to be physically be taken into custody, not issued a citation due to the “likeliness of the offense to continue”), and there is a incident an hour later when the victim ends up in the hospital, that officer is going to be severely disciplined. ** Even when there appears no PC on the prior event!

So officers in fear of making a wrong decision, often err on the side of arrest. This is almost 100% true is you have a “victim” who wants to prosecute, and there is no evidence. I’m telling you, you wouldn’t believe some to the complexities with domestic violence.

What do you think the burden of proof is to obtain an Order of Protection??[/quote]

Domestic abuse is a tough issue and I don’t envy the job LEO’s have responding to domestic calls.

25

Children essentially don’t have the mental or physical faculties to care for themselves or make informed decisions about their own welfare. Parents essentially have a duty of care towards their children. The state has a duty to ensure that parents do not starve their children to death.

26

A complicated issue; no doubt. When an action crosses the line from being morally wrong and becomes criminal is certainly challenging. I struggle with the concept of a DA representing the ‘public’; but there are arguments that can be made. I sympathize with the LEOs involved in these situations; it seems there is no way to win.
On a personal note: The advise I give people is that if you are involved with someone; and circumstances lead to believe you need to physically strike them in anger; they are not the right person to be in a relationship with.

27

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]Brett620 wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:
(I also oppose prosecuting the offender in shootings, stabbings, etc. with a victim that doesn’t want to do so). [/quote]

So I assume you are against murder prosecutions unless the victim presses charges.
[/quote]

Clever reply, but incorrect(and, truthfully, not all that clever-a victim that DOES NOT WANT TO press charges is obviously different than a victim that CAN NOT press charges). If someone’s life is taken(or the extent of one’s injury is such that they are no longer able to make or communicate decisions), then I’m okay with assuming that the person would NOT have consented to such(if he wanted death, he would have killed himself). Of course, if a person was to consent to being killed, while alive and conscious of what he’s consenting to, then I am okay with allowing the person to be killed(I don’t believe Jack Kevorkian to be a criminal…and wouldn’t think of him as such even if he had shot the people that wanted to die in their heads instead of just assisting them with suicide).

What I was talking about was more of a fight that results in one party being cut a couple of times, that person going to the hospital, the hospital calling for police response, and the police having to work the case, despite the “victim” obviously not wanting to pursue the matter. I have a feeling that Brett can verify how common such situations are. I don’t think police need to be helping either people that don’t want to help themselves(many domestic violence “victims”), people that don’t want to cooperate because they are afraid of blowback, or people that would just rather deal with a couple of cuts than to have to go to court.[/quote]

It happens all the time. Mostly with the complainants being neighbors and roommates.

And not only is there the law when dealing with domestics, but you also have departmental policy. Our General Orders actually stipulate that that with domestics, “The preferred response is arrest.” And often in practice, probable cause is not even the standard. It’s reasonable suspicion. If police DO NOT make a arrest (and with a DV misdemeanor, they have to be physically be taken into custody, not issued a citation due to the “likeliness of the offense to continue”), and there is a incident an hour later when the victim ends up in the hospital, that officer is going to be severely disciplined. ** Even when there appears no PC on the prior event!

So officers in fear of making a wrong decision, often err on the side of arrest. This is almost 100% true is you have a “victim” who wants to prosecute, and there is no evidence. I’m telling you, you wouldn’t believe some to the complexities with domestic violence.

What do you think the burden of proof is to obtain an Order of Protection??[/quote]

Domestic abuse is a tough issue and I don’t envy the job LEO’s have responding to domestic calls.

[/quote]

And I never had a problem working a legitimate DV incident. One where someone is clearly getting abused. That’s where the police and the legal system needs to step in an address the matter and protect the victim.

My problem is that advocacy groups have taken over, and pushed their own agenda to the extreme. When an incident for police is coded as a domestic, and police respond, and if there is any sign of “something happened” regardless of how minor it may be, our discretion is gone. We cannot use our judgment as police officers and taken into account mitigating factors and say, “you know, this man/woman doesn’t need to be arrested over this”.

And the “relationships” that are now included as domestic relationships, don’t get me started. Ex-roommates (with no dating relationship) that get into an argument at a bar a year after they lived together, is considered “DOMESTIC VIOLENCE”! WTF?

28

[quote]TooHuman wrote:
The problem however, is that in most domestic violence cases it’s impossible to determine who the initiator of violence was and in the other half of cases it’s about equal between men and women.[/quote]

Source?

29

[quote]Brett620 wrote:
It happens all the time. Mostly with the complainants being neighbors and roommates.

And not only is there the law when dealing with domestics, but you also have departmental policy. Our General Orders actually stipulate that that with domestics, “The preferred response is arrest.” And often in practice, probable cause is not even the standard. It’s reasonable suspicion. If police DO NOT make a arrest (and with a DV misdemeanor, the suspect has to be physically be taken into custody, not issued a citation due to the “likeliness of the offense to continue”), and there is a incident an hour later and the victim ends up in the hospital, that officer is going to be severely disciplined. ** Even when there appears no PC on the prior event!

So officers in fear of making a wrong decision, often err on the side of arrest. An arrest effectively separates the two parties so there will be no further threats or violence. This is almost 100% true is you have a “victim” who wants to prosecute, and there is questionable evidence. I’m telling you, you wouldn’t believe some to the complexities with domestic violence.

What do you think the burden of proof is to obtain an Order of Protection??[/quote]

Brett, I can assure you that I know exactly what you are talking about.

30

[quote]Brett620 wrote:
And I never had a problem working a legitimate DV incident. One where someone is clearly getting abused. That’s where the police and the legal system needs to step in an address the matter and protect the victim.

My problem is that advocacy groups have taken over, and pushed their own agenda to the extreme. When an incident for police is coded as a domestic, and police respond, and if there is any sign of “something happened” regardless of how minor it may be, our discretion is gone. We cannot use our judgment as police officers and taken into account mitigating factors and say, “you know, this man/woman doesn’t need to be arrested over this”.

And the “relationships” that are now included as domestic relationships, don’t get me started. Ex-roommates (with no dating relationship) that get into an argument at a bar a year after they lived together, is considered “DOMESTIC VIOLENCE”! WTF? [/quote]

Yep.

31

[quote]Brett620 wrote:

[quote]TooHuman wrote:
The problem however, is that in most domestic violence cases it’s impossible to determine who the initiator of violence was and in the other half of cases it’s about equal between men and women.[/quote]

Source?[/quote]

Well there are several sources with similar findings here:
http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm
But particularly Straus, M. (1980) is what i was referring to.

32

[quote]TooHuman wrote:
If she spat at him, that’s absolutely assault and the initiation of force.
Obviously what he did likely went far beyond self-defense, so minimum she would be prosecuted and possible both.
The problem however, is that in most domestic violence cases it’s impossible to determine who the initiator of violence was and in the other half of cases it’s about equal between men and women.[/quote]

In my state, the initiator of force is not necessarily going to be arrested. The PRIMARY PHYSICAL AGGRESSOR(which translates to: the one that did the most damage, or the one claimed by a third party to be the aggressor) is the party whose arrest is mandated. If the actual injuries to both parties are basically the same(no injury, or small bruises on both), both parties will likely be arrested(barring a neutral third-party witness’s story justifying one’s force).

33

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]Brett620 wrote:
Should the police prosecute on behalf of a victim when the victim DOES NOT want to prosecute??[/quote]

Absolutely not. Domestic violence should be treated like any other violence(I also oppose prosecuting the offender in shootings, stabbings, etc. with a victim that doesn’t want to do so). [/quote]

Why? If the offence takes place in public then haven’t they also committed an offence against the public? You know, “affray”.[/quote]

Even if we agree that the “public” is a real entity, then what damage was done to it? We have a “victim” that does NOT want the “offender” prosecuted, so we are left with punishing the “offender” for the damage he did to the “public,” right? [/quote]

Who says there needs to be a quantifiable damage done? Just because Murray Rothbard said so doesn’t make it so. Rothbard also said parents have a right to let their children starve to death because forcing the parent to feed them would violate the parents’ rights. It is in everyone’s interest to curtail reckless behaviour that endangers others even when no actual harm occurs. [/quote]

Well actually you are taking this out of context as Rothbard said that in the context of legal protections related to property rights. In terms of ethics and the non-aggression principal the aforementioned case would be homicide obviously.

Children are essentially prisoners within the home of the adult parents.

They didn’t choose their home or parents and cannot be held accountable with physical abuse.
People who verbally degrade or physically abuse their children are the basest of evil.

Doing this in the guise of punishment and defending parents who do is just as horribly immoral.[/quote]

No I’m not taking it out of context. I suggest you check your own notes. You haven’t learned your chosen ethical philosophy. Rothbard argued from the first principle that law must only be based on negative rights. He specifically stated that a parent can withhold food or shelter from their child and allow them to starve or freeze to death and the law should not sanction them for doing so. And you didn’t answer my questions in the other thread.[/quote]

Well my “chosen ethical philosophy” is not in any way in defense of Rothbard, he was wrong on ethics here clearly and was trying to make some kind of muddy minarchist argument.
Looks like you’re right on this. Rothbard was absolutely wrong here.
I don’t think we disagree on the ethics though.
I think we’re not disagreeing on the main point of ethics anyway.

34

[quote]Brett620 wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]Brett620 wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:
(I also oppose prosecuting the offender in shootings, stabbings, etc. with a victim that doesn’t want to do so). [/quote]

So I assume you are against murder prosecutions unless the victim presses charges.
[/quote]

Clever reply, but incorrect(and, truthfully, not all that clever-a victim that DOES NOT WANT TO press charges is obviously different than a victim that CAN NOT press charges). If someone’s life is taken(or the extent of one’s injury is such that they are no longer able to make or communicate decisions), then I’m okay with assuming that the person would NOT have consented to such(if he wanted death, he would have killed himself). Of course, if a person was to consent to being killed, while alive and conscious of what he’s consenting to, then I am okay with allowing the person to be killed(I don’t believe Jack Kevorkian to be a criminal…and wouldn’t think of him as such even if he had shot the people that wanted to die in their heads instead of just assisting them with suicide).

What I was talking about was more of a fight that results in one party being cut a couple of times, that person going to the hospital, the hospital calling for police response, and the police having to work the case, despite the “victim” obviously not wanting to pursue the matter. I have a feeling that Brett can verify how common such situations are. I don’t think police need to be helping either people that don’t want to help themselves(many domestic violence “victims”), people that don’t want to cooperate because they are afraid of blowback, or people that would just rather deal with a couple of cuts than to have to go to court.[/quote]

It happens all the time. Mostly with the complainants being neighbors and roommates.

And not only is there the law when dealing with domestics, but you also have departmental policy. Our General Orders actually stipulate that that with domestics, “The preferred response is arrest.” And often in practice, probable cause is not even the standard. It’s reasonable suspicion. If police DO NOT make a arrest (and with a DV misdemeanor, they have to be physically be taken into custody, not issued a citation due to the “likeliness of the offense to continue”), and there is a incident an hour later when the victim ends up in the hospital, that officer is going to be severely disciplined. ** Even when there appears no PC on the prior event!

So officers in fear of making a wrong decision, often err on the side of arrest. This is almost 100% true is you have a “victim” who wants to prosecute, and there is no evidence. I’m telling you, you wouldn’t believe some to the complexities with domestic violence.

What do you think the burden of proof is to obtain an Order of Protection??[/quote]

Domestic abuse is a tough issue and I don’t envy the job LEO’s have responding to domestic calls.

[/quote]

And I never had a problem working a legitimate DV incident. One where someone is clearly getting abused. That’s where the police and the legal system needs to step in an address the matter and protect the victim.

My problem is that advocacy groups have taken over, and pushed their own agenda to the extreme. When an incident for police is coded as a domestic, and police respond, and if there is any sign of “something happened” regardless of how minor it may be, our discretion is gone. We cannot use our judgment as police officers and taken into account mitigating factors and say, “you know, this man/woman doesn’t need to be arrested over this”.

And the “relationships” that are now included as domestic relationships, don’t get me started. Ex-roommates (with no dating relationship) that get into an argument at a bar a year after they lived together, is considered “DOMESTIC VIOLENCE”! WTF? [/quote]

Nope. That’s where YOU in your individual capacity are responsible in stepping in and helping the victim.

The fact that you are a police officer simply muddies the waters where you are preventing others from helping the victim because they fall into conflict with your monopoly on force.

35

BTW, here’s a couple of insightful videos on these 2 recent asault incidents related to NFL players.

36

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

Well my “chosen ethical philosophy” is not in any way in defense of Rothbard, he was wrong on ethics here clearly and was trying to make some kind of muddy minarchist argument.
[/quote]

No, he was not trying to make some “muddy” argument. He was being perfectly clear and consistent. He was arguing from first principle - the absolute right to non-interference. In Rothbard’s demented little fantasy world, “positive rights” are always unethical. To force a parent to feed or clothe their child would be “tyrannical” therefore mentally ill and murderous parents must be allowed to murder their own children via neglect. And by logical extension, one could murder an elderly parent who is dependent upon you by denying them food or water or clothing.

Rothbard was absolutely wrong virtually everywhere because he was a radical libertarian. Like his protege Ron Paul he was also a radical isolationist and historical revisionist. He believed that the Second World War was a war of aggression against Nazi Germany instigated by the Poles. This kind of historical and moral inversion is typical of radical libertarians. It’s why Ron Paul says that the US is “provoking” Iran.

You haven’t described your ethical philosophy. So far you’ve just made a few bizarre claims such as “rulers are immoral” and thrown around a few Rothbardian buzzwords like Non Aggression Principle.

37

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

[quote]Brett620 wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]Brett620 wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:
(I also oppose prosecuting the offender in shootings, stabbings, etc. with a victim that doesn’t want to do so). [/quote]

So I assume you are against murder prosecutions unless the victim presses charges.
[/quote]

Clever reply, but incorrect(and, truthfully, not all that clever-a victim that DOES NOT WANT TO press charges is obviously different than a victim that CAN NOT press charges). If someone’s life is taken(or the extent of one’s injury is such that they are no longer able to make or communicate decisions), then I’m okay with assuming that the person would NOT have consented to such(if he wanted death, he would have killed himself). Of course, if a person was to consent to being killed, while alive and conscious of what he’s consenting to, then I am okay with allowing the person to be killed(I don’t believe Jack Kevorkian to be a criminal…and wouldn’t think of him as such even if he had shot the people that wanted to die in their heads instead of just assisting them with suicide).

What I was talking about was more of a fight that results in one party being cut a couple of times, that person going to the hospital, the hospital calling for police response, and the police having to work the case, despite the “victim” obviously not wanting to pursue the matter. I have a feeling that Brett can verify how common such situations are. I don’t think police need to be helping either people that don’t want to help themselves(many domestic violence “victims”), people that don’t want to cooperate because they are afraid of blowback, or people that would just rather deal with a couple of cuts than to have to go to court.[/quote]

It happens all the time. Mostly with the complainants being neighbors and roommates.

And not only is there the law when dealing with domestics, but you also have departmental policy. Our General Orders actually stipulate that that with domestics, “The preferred response is arrest.” And often in practice, probable cause is not even the standard. It’s reasonable suspicion. If police DO NOT make a arrest (and with a DV misdemeanor, they have to be physically be taken into custody, not issued a citation due to the “likeliness of the offense to continue”), and there is a incident an hour later when the victim ends up in the hospital, that officer is going to be severely disciplined. ** Even when there appears no PC on the prior event!

So officers in fear of making a wrong decision, often err on the side of arrest. This is almost 100% true is you have a “victim” who wants to prosecute, and there is no evidence. I’m telling you, you wouldn’t believe some to the complexities with domestic violence.

What do you think the burden of proof is to obtain an Order of Protection??[/quote]

Domestic abuse is a tough issue and I don’t envy the job LEO’s have responding to domestic calls.

[/quote]

And I never had a problem working a legitimate DV incident. One where someone is clearly getting abused. That’s where the police and the legal system needs to step in an address the matter and protect the victim.

My problem is that advocacy groups have taken over, and pushed their own agenda to the extreme. When an incident for police is coded as a domestic, and police respond, and if there is any sign of “something happened” regardless of how minor it may be, our discretion is gone. We cannot use our judgment as police officers and taken into account mitigating factors and say, “you know, this man/woman doesn’t need to be arrested over this”.

And the “relationships” that are now included as domestic relationships, don’t get me started. Ex-roommates (with no dating relationship) that get into an argument at a bar a year after they lived together, is considered “DOMESTIC VIOLENCE”! WTF? [/quote]

Nope. That’s where YOU in your individual capacity are responsible in stepping in and helping the victim.

The fact that you are a police officer simply muddies the waters where you are preventing others from helping the victim because they fall into conflict with your monopoly on force.[/quote]

Since this is a public forum, I’m going to cite some… hypothetical incident that I may/could have been involved in.

Boyfriend and girlfriend live together. Girlfriend is on the lease, but boyfriend contributes to the household bills. Girlfriend finds another man, and now wants boyfriend out immediately. Boyfriend says no, this is my home, I have to have some time to find a place. Since he has established residency, it’s a civil matter and she has to go through the lengthy eviction process. Girlfriend is pissed. So she decided to get an Order of Protection against the boyfriend because she feels “threatened” and “intimidated” because he owns a firearm. An Ex-Parte order is granted, and he has to IMMEDIATLY LEAVE THE PROPERTY OR BE SUBJECT TO ARREST! To obtain an Ex-Parte order, it requires NO EVIDENCE SIMPLY AN ALLEGATION. Then 30 days later you go to court to have a hearing before a judge to show cause. Meanwhile boyfriend is thrown out.

Tell me, how would I be of service to this victim? And trust me, cases like this are not the exception.

38

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

[quote]Brett620 wrote:

[quote]TooHuman wrote:
The problem however, is that in most domestic violence cases it’s impossible to determine who the initiator of violence was and in the other half of cases it’s about equal between men and women.[/quote]

Source?[/quote]

Well there are several sources with similar findings here:
http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm
But particularly Straus, M. (1980) is what i was referring to.
[/quote]

I didn’t open your link. I just saw it was from 1980. It’s common sense that women are disproportionately affected.

85% of victims are women. That stat comes from the U.S. Bureau of Justice.

http://www.ncadv.org/files/DomesticViolenceFactSheet(National).pdf

39

[quote]Brett620 wrote:

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

[quote]Brett620 wrote:

[quote]TooHuman wrote:
The problem however, is that in most domestic violence cases it’s impossible to determine who the initiator of violence was and in the other half of cases it’s about equal between men and women.[/quote]

Source?[/quote]

Well there are several sources with similar findings here:
http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm
But particularly Straus, M. (1980) is what i was referring to.
[/quote]

I didn’t open your link. I just saw it was from 1980. It’s common sense that women are disproportionately affected.

85% of victims are women. That stat comes from the U.S. Bureau of Justice.

http://www.ncadv.org/files/DomesticViolenceFactSheet(National).pdf

[/quote]

Nope. 85% of violent CRIMES are against women(according to that bjs study)
This is of course equated to incidents of violence in general by NCADV because this organization has a political motivation that obscures this fact.

If you look at the link, it actually has about 7 large studies done that indicate the rate of unreported violence against men and the reasons for not reporting the violence(ostracism, etc…).

First of all, i’m not sure what the date has to do with your arguments. Are you arguing that the proportion of violence against women has actually gone up since 1980?
If that’s your argument that same link(updated 2012) has a few studies showing it in fact has gone down.
Obviously, “common sense” isn’t evidence of anything.

Men are physically abused about equally in relationships and male children are generally abused far more often and more severely.

Sources in the above link.

40

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

Well my “chosen ethical philosophy” is not in any way in defense of Rothbard, he was wrong on ethics here clearly and was trying to make some kind of muddy minarchist argument.
[/quote]

No, he was not trying to make some “muddy” argument. He was being perfectly clear and consistent. He was arguing from first principle - the absolute right to non-interference. In Rothbard’s demented little fantasy world, “positive rights” are always unethical. To force a parent to feed or clothe their child would be “tyrannical” therefore mentally ill and murderous parents must be allowed to murder their own children via neglect. And by logical extension, one could murder an elderly parent who is dependent upon you by denying them food or water or clothing.

Rothbard was absolutely wrong virtually everywhere because he was a radical libertarian. Like his protege Ron Paul he was also a radical isolationist and historical revisionist. He believed that the Second World War was a war of aggression against Nazi Germany instigated by the Poles. This kind of historical and moral inversion is typical of radical libertarians. It’s why Ron Paul says that the US is “provoking” Iran.

You haven’t described your ethical philosophy. So far you’ve just made a few bizarre claims such as “rulers are immoral” and thrown around a few Rothbardian buzzwords like Non Aggression Principle.
[/quote]

Hmmm, well like I said in the other thread if you want the whole thing it would be very lengthy.

There is a book by stefan molyneux called Universally preferable behavior which as close as it gets to my own philosophy i think. Here it is:

That’s a good starting point, and we can go from there if you want to make a rebuttal.