Perpetuating the myth of domestic violence

black eye

 

The above graphic has been circulating the internet for at least a couple weeks now.  It references the incident between former Baltimore Ravens running back Ray Rice assaulting his then fiancee in an Atlantic City casino elevator.  I think the image above only serves to show the bias most people have when it comes to domestic violence, namely, that the woman is virtually always the victim.  As a matter of statistical reality, men are as likely to be victims of domestic violence as women, and a majority of the time, it is the woman who strikes first.

 

(ScienceDaily) — The [University of Washington] study also found no independent link between an individual’s use of alcohol or drugs and committing domestic violence. In addition it showed that nearly twice as many women as men said they perpetrated domestic violence in the past year including kicking, biting or punching their partner, threatening to hit or throw something at their partner, and pushing, grabbing or shoving their partner.

(University of Florida) – In a survey of 2,500 students at UF and the University of South Carolina between August and December 2005, more than a quarter (29 percent) reported physically assaulting their dates and 22 percent reported being the victims of attacks during the past year. Thirty-two percent of women reported being the perpetrators of this violence, compared with 24 percent of men. The students took selected liberal arts and sciences courses. Forty percent were men and 60 percent were women, reflecting the gender composition of these classes.

(American Journal of Public Health) — Almost 24% of all relationships had some violence, and half (49.7%) of those were reciprocally violent. In nonreciprocally violent relationships, women were the perpetrators in more than 70% of the cases. Reciprocity was associated with more frequent violence among women (adjusted odds ratio [AOR]=2.3; 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.9, 2.8), but not men (AOR=1.26; 95% CI=0.9, 1.7). Regarding injury, men were more likely to inflict injury than were women (AOR=1.3; 95% CI=1.1, 1.5), and reciprocal intimate partner violence was associated with greater injury than was nonreciprocal intimate partner violence regardless of the gender of the perpetrator (AOR=4.4; 95% CI=3.6, 5.5).

(Baltimore Sun) — Men are often the victims of their girlfriends or wives. Ned Holstein and Glenn Sacks (“The violence we ignore,” July 16, 2009) cite a 2007 Harvard study that says, “according to both men’s and women’s accounts, 50 percent of the violence in their relationship was reciprocal (involving both parties). In those cases, the women were more likely to have been the first to strike.”

The article continues: “Moreover, when the violence was one-sided, both women and men said that women were the perpetrators about 70 percent of the time.”

What makes me shake my head at the image is its intended message.  Even though Janay, Rice’s then fiancee and now wife, was more severely hurt in the altercation, she was the first to commit assault.  I’m not defending Rice’s Mike Tyson-like close-fisted punch to her face.  Not at all. The image, and the media, omit this salient detail: that she spit on, and struck Rice prior to his actions.  She also committed assault and was a perpetrator of domestic violence.

A man’s ability to inflict greater damage not withstanding, there is a perception that when there is physical abuse in a relationship, that it’s the man who is the abuser.  Images of a husband coming home to find his dinner burned and slapping his wife for ruining his meal still lingers in the minds of many people.

My questions are why do we, as a society, suppress the reality of domestic violence?  Why do we only seem to care when someone we view as weaker is abused?  If men and women are supposed to be  equals, should her employer also fire her, if she is employed given the circumstances?  What do you think would happen to someone who might try to correct the current (mis)perception of domestic violence?

Comments

  1. paynehollow says:

    I don’t know that anyone is suppressing anything. Making a charge of “suppressing the reality…” makes it sound as if there were a plot or conspiracy afoot. The thing is, people are opposed to abuse wherever it happens, as we should be.

    But I was raised in an era and location where the notion that real men don’t hit kids, women, anyone, but certainly not smaller people. And so, I think people rightly recoil at the notion of a man hitting a woman, especially in such a vicious manner. And that, even if a woman or child slapped him first.

    I worked with children with emotional problems for years and they would sometimes strike out at me and other adult workers. Does that justify us walloping them? Of course not.

    It doesn’t mean that people are unaware of or are trying to suppress research about women who abuse. Beyond that, there appears to be mixed reports on the topic. It appears that, according to the Department of Justice, that 95% of abuse victims are women…

    http://www.domesticpeace.com/ed_nationalstats.html

    …and also that domestic violence is the leading cause of injuries to women… and that women much more frequently die at the hand of an abusive male partner/family member.

    So, it is with some righteous concern that people need to speak out against domestic violence, and especially male on female violence, as it appears to be a greater concern. Which is in no way to minimize the abuse when it’s female on male, just trying to keep a reasonably proportionate response based on the evidence.

    ~Dan

  2. paynehollow says:

    John, I would say that I absolutely believe that you are not defending male abusers. Of course, you are not, you are not evil in any way. I do not for one second think that is your intent. Just to be clear.

    Having said that, when you title a post like this with “the myth of domestic violence,” it makes it sound as if you are defending abusers. You might want to reconsider how you are framing commentary like this.

    IF you want to make the case that women, also, abuse their male partners way too often, you might want to couch it in terms of: “Latest research about domestic violence questions the notion that men are the predominant abusers…” or “Males, too, are abused…” or something like that. This approach you are taking sounds a bit as if you are trying to defend male abusers, or to downplay the very serious nature of the problem, as if you are saying, “Well, she slapped him first… so…”

    Just a helpful suggestion.

    ~Dan

    • Dan the myth of domestic violence is essentially that women are nearly always the victim. The facts are that women actually initiate violence more than men, and physically attack men in equal numbers as men. It’s just never presented that way.

      The case with Ray Rice, she actually attacked him initially, which few will say because it sounds like you’re trying to justify Rice, which isn’t true either.

      • paynehollow says:

        John…

        Dan the myth of domestic violence is essentially that women are nearly always the victim. The facts are that women actually initiate violence more than men, and physically attack men in equal numbers as men.

        Who is presenting it this way, John, that women never abuse?

        On the other hand, I’ve just linked to two separate sources that appear to say that women are the abused in 95% of cases (DOJ), so that stat WOULD suggest that women are nearly always the victim. Now, I do not know the actual data, the reality on the ground, do you? Have you found one source that says that women are abusive nearly as often as men and you are just choosing that one and ignoring the other?

        If the latter, do you see how that makes it sound like you are seeking to defend abusers (even though I’m sure that’s not your intent)? Why choose the one source and not the other?

        Or, here’s the CDC, again, saying that for women, it’s a 1 in 3 chance of abuse or rape and with men, it’s a 1 in 4 chance…

        http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/nisvs_report2010-a.pdf

        I don’t know with any authority which data is right – your source that says it happens about equally, this CDC report which says women are slightly more abused (but still more likely to be killed, I believe) or the DOJ data which says women are overwhelmingly the victims. In my experience (and, living where I live and working closely with various mental health and social work groups), I certainly do see/hear about reciprocally violent situations, but I see/hear about more male-on-female abuse and the results of the abuse are greater when it’s male-on-female.

        Which data are you relying on and why?

        ~Dan

  3. Apparently you think all violence is equal.

    Now I don’t condone either behavior, but I think there might be a slight difference between a football player spitting on a referee and punching a referee unconscious, no?

    When examining the charge, I think we should try to determine the intent and degree of injury on each case separately.

    I have to agree with Dan about your title. The “myth of domestic violence” implies that the act itself isn’t happening.

    • Z, I agree that there is a difference in degree of injuring capability. But that doesn’t excuse dismissing violent women just because they don’t hurt their partner as bad.

      The myth, as I’ve said, is that men abuse women more and that women are essentially defenseless victims. That’s my issue.

      • This question of ability to inflict harm reminds me of a recent post of mine wherein a visitor tried to suggest that the palestinians are victims because Israel’s retaliatory strikes are more effective than the thousands of missiles launched by the palestinians. It’s ridiculous.

        For a man to continually be expected to take abuse from a weaker person without finally losing composure is inane. The observer, especially the average person reading a report in a news account, cannot know the details of the relationship. I can’t see that I would carry on a relationship with a dame who was abusive; certainly not longer than two incidents. I doubt I would stand for non-physical abuse, either. Why some stick around and take it requires some study. But in doing so, amongst those who do will be those who lose it and strike back. The damage will likely be significantly greater than any he had to endure. But enablers of abusers come in both genders with one gender having the physical ability to endure more easily and retaliate harder, without even trying.

        I do like the point John made regarding the fiance’s job situation after news of her abusive behavior came out with this story. Did she lose her job, too? It seems she should, or Rice is condemned for being a man. They say he was released because of domestic abuse, but his woman is equally, and possibly MORE guilty. Is she still employed (if she had been at the time?). No one is even considering her guilt simply because she could not endure the retaliatory strike. Sounds just like the pallies.

  4. I think the title of the article is appropriate. The “myth” of domestic violence is that only men perpetrate it. John’s point is that this is an erroneous idea. It is a myth. Therefore, the title is appropriate.

  5. paynehollow says:

    But who has argued that “only men abuse…”? Has ANYONE said that?

    John, who is “dismissing” it when women abuse? Anyone? Do either of you all have evidence that there are people arguing that only men abuse or that anyone dismisses it when women abuse? If not, perhaps you should re-state your point.

    No, I know of no one who is saying either of those things. That would make your claims false ones, unless you can support it.

    On the other hand, the DOJ says that men are the abusers 95% of the time and that their abuse is more damaging/more often results in death or serious harm, so, if that is correct, then men ARE the abusers most of the time (I will say, I don’t know which stat is apt. I’m just pointing to the stat from the DOJ and other sources I’ve seen to say that there are other data to consider).

    No, Glenn, the only Myth here is that there is a myth that only men abuse.

    ~Dan

    • Dan, when you hear “domestic violence ” what image comes to mind?

      • paynehollow says:

        The images that I’ve personally seen predominantly, or know about first or second hand: Men abusing women. But that’s just been my experience, predominantly.

        Are you suggesting that there is some coordinated plot to hide abuse of men by women? Or, what is your point?

        ~Dan

  6. paynehollow says:

    Marshall…

    For a man to continually be expected to take abuse from a weaker person without finally losing composure is inane.

    So, is this the “men can’t help it if they’re pushed too far” defense? Again, while I am certain that you all do not defend men abusing women, you’re sounding exactly like that in your words. Perhaps you should choose them more carefully.

    Again, I’ve worked with children/teens (some bigger than me) who’ve been aggressive. I was always able to not lose my composure, at least to the degree that I never had to hit anyone. It’s called being an adult and in control of one’s self, especially around weaker/smaller individuals.

    And, Marshall, no one – NO ONE – is telling men to “continually take abuse…” IF you are being abused – man or woman – you should remove yourself from that situation. Now, just as with women, I’m certain that sometimes men might be cowed and intimidated into staying out of fear, so I’m not saying that does not happen. I’m just saying that no one is expecting anyone to “take abuse.” Of course not. But, IF you are going to “lose composure” to the point of where YOU become abusive, you’ve waited too long.

    Also, that you all are clinging to this one bit of research and not noting the other stats, that makes your position seem odd, as if you all are defending the indefensible (which again, I’m certain you’re not).

    So, here’s some more data. According to the CDC…

    1. In 2010, 241 males and 1095 females were murdered by an intimate partner
    2. In their lifetime, 1 in 4 women (24.3%) and 1 in 7 men (13.8%) report experiencing severe physical violence (e.g., hit with a fist or something hard, beaten, slammed against something) by an intimate partner.

    http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/deltafocus/index.html

    So, according to that data, it is a problem for men and women, but moreso a problem for women. Agreed?

    Do you agree that there is no conspiracy to say that women don’t abuse, or are you suggesting that?

    Just to clarify.

    ~Dan

    • It’s actually an undisputed fact that men don’t report abuse in relationships. The answer most given is they’re afraid they will be the ones arrested. So pointing to a DOJ or other government survey isn’t effective.

      • paynehollow says:

        No doubt, both men and women do not report abuse as much as it happens, and men probably opt not to report at a greater level than women, according to research.

        So, do you have the Actual Number that we can “know” is the right statistic to rely upon?

        ~Dan

  7. John,
    I am not sure if you mean to specify that in the US only, domestic abuse is not as male dominated as pop culture thinks, but the very sickening reality is that outside of the US, and historically, men are and have been the primary perpetrators of eons of violence against women.

    Also the number of women killed by men is 24x’s higher, than the reverse in the US. Also the hospitalizable events from domestic abuse for women are exponentially higher.

    When you factor in murder and the need for hospitalizations, it’s a no brainer.

    And may I ask why christian conservative men in the US seem so fixated on downplaying violence against women by trying to pull some non-existent victim card? Why is this even a social issue of interest? And more importantly why not just come out and posit that “all” domestic abuse is bad instead of trying to argue that a few women have thrown punches at men in the US?

    • Nash

      I am speaking strictly of modern US domestic violence.

      I’m also not trying to down play it. Domestic violence in any relationship is wrong and should be prosecuted.

    • may I ask why christian conservative men in the US seem so fixated on downplaying violence against women by trying to pull some non-existent victim card?

      WOW, talk about an unfounded assertion to appeal to emotion!! Oh those horrible Christian conservative men are always downplaying violence against women! PROVE IT! Don’t make such asinine unsubstantiated claims.

  8. paynehollow says:

    Glenn…

    Don’t make such asinine unsubstantiated claims.

    But, I thought that was the Modus Operandi, here? Don’t you all just live on unsubstantiated claims?

    Look in this very thread…

    1. For a man to continually be expected to take abuse from a weaker person without finally losing composure is inane… UNSUBSTANTIATED CLAIM.

    2. The “myth” of domestic violence is that only men perpetrate it. UNSUBSTANTIATED CLAIM.

    3. The myth, as I’ve said, is that men abuse women more and that women are essentially defenseless victims. UNSUBSTANTIATED CLAIM.

    4. But that doesn’t excuse dismissing violent women just because they don’t hurt their partner as bad. UNSUBSTANTIATED CLAIM.

    By all means, Glenn, start supporting your claims. Richard, for his part, was making no claim, he was asking a question…

    may I ask why christian conservative men in the US seem so fixated on downplaying violence against women by trying to pull some non-existent victim card?

    You will notice that it is asked in the form of a question (literally, “MAY I ASK…”), that it had a question mark and that Richard was expressing how it SEEMS, not stating that it was.

    See the difference between a question and a claim?

    By all means, start supporting your claims. I fully agree that you all should follow our example and start doing so.

    Ha.

    ~Dan

    • None of those are unsubstantiated.

      1, ever heard the phrase “it’s never ok for a man to ever put his hands on a woman”? Of course you have.

      2 what image comes to mind when you hear “domestic violence”? Same here: a man slapping a woman. Think I’m wrong? Ask anyone that question.

      3 see number 2

      4 see number 1

    • Trabue,

      I made no unsubstantiated claims here. NONE. Nor am I in the habit of doing so, so you need to stop with your bearing false witness against me. LIAR.

      You will notice that the question was a CLAIM. A CLAIM that something seems to be. No evidence was give to support a claim that something seems to be — that it seems that conservative Christian men downplay violence against women. Seems to be by whom? What evidence was given to substantiate that anything SEEMS TO BE.

      Some how you have determined that if a person states it in a form of a question and uses “Seems to be” it magically becomes a non-claim.

      That is downright stupid.

  9. paynehollow says:

    John…

    Dan, did you miss the 4 studies I cited?

    I saw the quotes you shared, yes. What makes them the “right” sources and not the CDC?

    In looking deeper into your first source, I’m not sure that you haven’t pulled it out of context. (Not saying you did, I’m saying I’m not clear on the wording of the source material). You cited that “twice as many women as men said they perpetrated domestic violence,” but I’m not sure if it’s just speaking of the subgroup of “those teens who engaged in violence, who were more likely to abuse a spouse later” or of the whole group, non-aggressors and aggressors. It looks like to me that that particular citation is speaking only of the violent sub-group, not the larger group, but it’s not clear to me.

    All of that to say that I’m not sure you’re interpreting the data correctly.

    ~Dan

    • I’m saying, again, that men are reluctant to report domestic violence to authorities, which is why government numbers may not be accurate. However, there is no fear of arrest or reprisal from reporting to a university or study group.

      Why do you feel comfortable drawing conclusions from the CDC here but when talking about the disease filled homosexual community, you’re unable to draw any conclusions. Kind of selective huh.

      • paynehollow says:

        I’m not “unable to draw conclusions” from CDC data about homosexuality. I state clearly that YOUR extra, culturally-biased conclusions you draw are problematic, but data is what data is.

        • Be honest. Our conclusions regarding homosexuality are based on science AND the clear teaching of Scripture, which forms the basis of our cultural understandings of what is or isn’t moral behavior. The “cultural bias” didn’t come first. First came God’s Word and our culture is based, to one degree or another, on that. YOU are a product of a culture that is moving away from God’s Word. YOU are the one biased by worldliness.

          Now that I’ve cleared that up, carry on.

  10. paynehollow says:

    John…

    None of those are unsubstantiated.

    As a point of fact, each one of them is. Look again…

    1, ever heard the phrase “it’s never ok for a man to ever put his hands on a woman”? Of course you have.

    ? That does not substantiate the notion that men should just take abuse. MEN SHOULD LEAVE ABUSE. Who advocates that men should remain in abusive relationships? You’d have to provide that sort of data to substantiate the claim. The only people I can think of who might encourage men or women to stay in abusive relationships would be fundamentalist Christian, Mormon or Muslim types who think that the abused should stay in a marriage to save the marriage…

    2 what image comes to mind when you hear “domestic violence”? Same here: a man slapping a woman. Think I’m wrong? Ask anyone that question.

    That people envision men abusing women does not mean that people deny that the opposite does not happen. If people at large are like me, it’s just what they’ve seen in their neighbors, their families, in the churches and elsewhere: Men abusing women.

    Just anecdotally, I have seen or personally, directly know of probably at least 40-50 (probably a good deal more) abusive domestic situations and in NONE of those have the women been the instigators of violence. Now, because of where I live and work, I may know of more than average, but that’s been my experience, so it IS what I picture. But just that I envision what I’ve experienced does not mean I deny that women-abusing-men doesn’t happen.

    They remain unsubstantiated. Factually speaking.

    ~Dan

    • I’m starting to think, Dan, that you don’t believe the bs you write here. No one is that obtuse.

    • ” Who advocates that men should remain in abusive relationships?”
      Anyone who takes the notion of vows and promises literally. Most wedding vows have some version of “for better or worse until death parts us”. While the steps that led to that vow might indicate a less than mature method of choosing a spouse, the vow is taken nonetheless. Some think that’s truly important and sacred. Apparently you don’t.

  11. paynehollow says:

    Oh, I can be quite obtuse. And I believe everything I write. Want me to change my opinions? Provide some data. Insults do very little in making me change my opinions, but data can be convincing.

    DO you have any hard data to substantiate the claim that there is someone advocating that men remain in abusive relationships (someone besides conservative-types, that is)? Provide the data and you can make me change my opinion.

    Or leave it unsubstantiated and it will go rightly ignored.

    ~Dan

  12. paynehollow says:

    Obtuse, indeed.

    Someone made the claim…

    1. For a man to continually be expected to take abuse from a weaker person without finally losing composure is inane…

    And I pointed out the fact that this is an unsubstantiated claim. You said, “nu uh, it IS substantiated.” and I pointed out that, no, it’s not.

    NO ONE is expecting men to take abuse from anyone. THAT is the claim. Now, to substantiate the claim, you’d have to provide some data that shows some people ARE expecting men to “continually take the abuse…” which I paraphrased as “remain in abusive relationships.” I paraphrased it thusly because “continue to take abuse” and “remain in abusive relationships” are functional equivalents. But to be clear: NO ONE is expecting me to take abuse continually.

    Now, if you want to substantiate the claim, provide data that shows someone is expecting men to continually take abuse. Again, the only people I can think of who might do that would be some conservative types, is that what you’re arguing? That some conservative types are arguing that men should continue to take abuse? If that is your claim, I think that could be substantiated, but otherwise and in general, not so much.

    Substantiate away. Or just admit you misspoke.

    ~Dan

  13. paynehollow says:

    To help remind you: Your response to this before was “ever heard the phrase “it’s never ok for a man to ever put his hands on a woman”? Of course you have.”

    Yes, there is a phrase in the world that “it’s never okay for a man to hit a woman” or words to that effect. But that such a phrase exists in the world is NOT hard data that says people generally believe that men should continually take abuse. See?

    Just to be clear: Are you arguing that it IS okay for men to hit women?

    By all means, make that case.

    I started out thinking that you all surely do not mean to sound like you do, but it sounds more and more like you think, “Ya know, sometimes, a woman is just really asking for it… if she pushes, spits or slaps a man, sometimes a man’s just got to hit her back…” as opposed to the more rational, I don’t know, just walking away?

    Clarify away.

    ~Dan

  14. paynehollow says:

    John…

    I think marshal was speaking about a man defending himself physically. I’m also pretty sure you know that.

    ? Yes, I know that. How does that change things? I’m STILL saying that IF a man is being beaten upon by a woman, the thing to do is to leave. NOT assault the woman.

    Are you saying that if a child or a woman is beating a man he should just overcome her with more violence?

    The point remains: No one is advocating that a man “continually” take abuse. No one but conservatives, of course.

    • It seems that part of Trabue’s argument has to do with his belief that it is always possible to walk away – to leave – if someone is beating on you, and that you should never have a reason to hit back. I have been in, and even know of others who have been in, situations where it was not possible to leave and the only recourse was self-defense and returning a blow or two in order to stop the one beating them. Of course in some liberal, lovey-dovey, never harm another person fairy tale land no such situation could ever occur!

  15. paynehollow says:

    Glenn, as noted, I have had jobs and lived in places and taken steps that have involved me with violent people. I have always been able to talk or walk my way through the violence without engaging in violence. And certainly, this is true when it comes to women and children.

    Are you saying there are some instances where you have had to hit women and/or children to save yourself, Big Man?

    Look, I am sure there are instances where one may feel cornered and not able to walk away at the moment. BUT, the comment in question is the suggestion that someone is saying that men should CONTINUE to take abuse. That, to me, suggests an ongoing staying with an abuser, CONTINUING in a relationship even when it’s abusive. No one is arguing for that, that I know of, except maybe some conservatives.

    I guess if Marshall was just indicating a one time incident and by “continue” he meant, continue to take abuse that one time, that might be different. But even then, especially in the case of a smaller person doing the abuse, you should be able to walk away.

    IF you all are asking/saying, “So, if there’s this ONE TIME situation and a woman or child is BIGGER than the man and is beating the man mercilessly and he can’t get her to stop, people say that even then, he still should just take the beating until he’s dead or until she’s stopped,” even then, NO ONE is saying that. Not that I know of.

    Do you know of someone who is arguing that men should let themselves be beat to death by a woman, simply because she is a woman? If so, provide the data.

    As to this being “unable” to stop abuse – especially if you’re the larger one – and “needing” to turn to physical fighting to stop it, I don’t buy it, not as a rule.

    The Bible teaches a soft answer turneth away wrath and that we CAN overcome evil with good. Most people just aren’t willing to attack a person who will not fight back, not in my experience (and again, I’ve worked with violent people, and worked with others who’ve worked with violent people).

    So, if you have data that shows that people are saying men should allow themselves to be beaten to death in order to avoid hitting a woman or child, provide it. I don’t think it exists, except maybe in conservative circles.

    ~Dan

    • Trabue,
      1. Quit equating YOUR experiences with standard of measure. Everyone has different experiences. Just because YOU never encountered an incident in which you were not able to leave, that doesn’t mean those situations don’t exist. I understand that you think of yourself as the paradigm of virtue and all truth, but that ain’t reality.

      2. Quit practicing eisegesis with what people say – you do it all the time. You read into what people say what you WANT them to say so that you can attack an argument which was never raised. That’s called a straw man argument.

      Did I anywhere in my statement about there not always being a way other than self defense even hint as to the gender of either the attacker or the victim? I was making a general statement that there are situations that even I know about where there was no available way out other than self defense. This was stated so as to counter your suggestion that in every violent situation one can always leave.

      You also suggest that there is no way a man should have to defend himself against a woman, but you seem to forget there are small men and large women. I’m sure there are women out there who could whip your tail and send you home in tears.

      The Bible teaches a soft answer turneth away wrath and that we CAN overcome evil with good.
      You just love to take Scripture out of context. Sorry, bubb, but this passage is a general principle, not a factual statement for all incidents. Common sense for most people says that one can often respond in a way to reduce the aggressor’s anger, but that is not always possible.

      Most people just aren’t willing to attack a person who will not fight back, not in my experience
      Again you provide your limited experience in life as an example as to why your belief should be considered the standard.

      Bubb, I’ve lived with the gangs – Mexican and black – and they will attack anyone they don’t like for any reason at all, and it is irrelevant to them if the person is fighting back or not – if they want to pummel him, they will do so. And there are gangs like that all over the country. The individual types who make up gangs do the same thing on a one-on-one level; they will beat their intended target to a pulp no matter how much they refuse to defend themselves. I’ve seen it. THAT is MY personal experience which is contrary to YOUR personal experience. I don’t demand that others accept this as the standard as you do; I only note that not everything works the same in every situation. Believe it or not, every situation is different!

  16. paynehollow says:

    Glenn, what purpose was there in pointing out that the “gangs” you have lived with were specifically black and Mexican?

    As to the rest of your rant, you put an awful lot of words in my mouth that I did not say, so argue against that strawman all you want. If you’d like to, at some point, come back to my actual points I actually made, let me know.

    ~Dan

    • Trabue,

      The purpose of pointing out makeup of the gangs was to make it clear that I have live with both Mexican gangs and black gangs – their make up and reason for their assaults tend to be different. But then, you want to make it into a racist statement – don’t you?

      Oh, so I have a “rant” but YOU have intellectual discourse? I put no words in your mouth. I responded to exactly what you said. Or do you have problems reading and understanding the English language.

      Item 1 above – you continually, on blog article after blog article, put forth your experiences as examples of what truth is and how everyone else should believe. You always argue based on your limited experience rather than accept the FACT that your experiences don’t necessarily (and indeed, rarely) represent what is normal in society.

      And the attitude you always project on blog after blog is that you are the epitome of intelligence and that anyone disagreeing with you is ignorant, even if all Christians over thousands of years taught something, by gum gaddfry they are wrong and you are right. This reflect an arrogant attitude fitting my comment about you thinking you are a paradigm – i.e., a model, for everyone else to look up to and follow. I like Ark’s suggestion of paragon even better, because that reflects even better your abject arrogance as to how you obviously see yourself.

      Item 2 didn’t put words in your mouth either. You stated this, insultingly:
      Are you saying there are some instances where you have had to hit women and/or children to save yourself, Big Man?
      I merely pointed out your eisegesis – which is routine for you – and demonstrated I never even hinted at that.

      as opposed to the more rational, I don’t know, just walking away?

      I have always been able to talk or walk my way through the violence without engaging in violence.

      I am sure there are instances where one may feel cornered and not able to walk away at the moment.

      But even then, especially in the case of a smaller person doing the abuse, you should be able to walk away

      You stated more than once above that rather than defend oneself that they should leave the situation. You said they could walk away and leave. Yet when I rebut that by saying there are situations where that is impossible, you now say I put words in your mouth! (Notice that in one statement you suggest that the person only FEELS cornered – as if the person is in error). And you suggest that a smaller person is one doing the abuse, the larger person should be able to walk away, without even thinking that there may be a zillion other factors preventing the larger person from doing so!

      So now, how about demonstrating what words I “put in your mouth”!

  17. paynehollow says:

    sigh…

    on blog article after blog article, put forth your experiences as examples of what truth is and how everyone else should believe.

    I always put out my experiences, when I do, as MY experiences, not as research or true for all. And I put out research as research, for what it’s worth. Never have I said, “This is my experience, therefore, it is true for all people.” Has not happened in the real world. That’s more of y’all’s purview.

    No, THAT is the strawman you are arguing against. Since I’ve never stated it, you are welcome to argue against it all you want, but if you ever want to talk about my actual points (you know, from my actual words, as opposed to what you read into my words that is not there, factually speaking…), let me know.

    Glenn…

    So now, how about demonstrating what words I “put in your mouth”!

    Done.

    ~Dan

    • Trabue,
      I always put out my experiences, when I do, as MY experiences, not as research or true for all. And I put out research as research, for what it’s worth. Never have I said, “This is my experience, therefore, it is true for all people.” Has not happened in the real world.

      It is the implication. It is implicit in every article you comment on. And all the people who you’ve trolled on can verify that is how your “experiences” are always put forth. It is often the first thing you put forth – your experience rather than raw data from appropriate sources.

      • paynehollow says:

        To “imply” is to hint at. Since it is not my intention to “hint” that my experience is the only right experience, you choose your words wrongly and are, factually speaking, mistaken.

        That you INFER something into what I’ve read is on you, since your inference is NOT my implication.

        So, again, if you want to talk about my actual words, my actual points, my actual meanings – as opposed to your mistaken inferences and strawmen – let me know.

        And, factually speaking, the first things I “put up” on this thread were links to other research and data. When John asked me personally what I thought of when I thought of domestic abuse, I THEN offered my specific experience, by way of explaining why I thought of domestic abuse as male-dominant.

        Wrong, and wrong.

        Let me know if you want to talk about my actual points.

        ~Dan

        • You are being intentionally stupid. I DID NOT say you ALWAYS put experience first – I said “It is often the first thing you put forth.” Try reading better.

          The implication is there, Trabue, and everyone who has a blog you’ve troll – especially the ones you’ve been banned from (thank God) recognizes the implications. Deny it, deceive yourself.

          How about YOU address MY actual point rather than jumping on my comments without actually reading what was behind them, FOOL!

        • paynehollow says:

          Yeah, yeah, I know, You know my mind better than I do, Glenn. THAT’S rational.

          ~Dan

    • Actually dan, you usually put up your experiences as the norm while only claiming that you’re putting them up as anecdotal. Just a point of clarification.

      • My point exactly, John.

        • paynehollow says:

          Oh? So you’re saying, John, that MY ACTUAL WORDS say that they are anecdoctal, but YOU somehow “know” that, in spite of what my actual words say, I mean something else?

          You guys are so funny.

          John, how about you? Ever hit a girl/woman/child?

          Given Glenn’s behavior, I’m starting to wonder if this half-hearted defense of men who hit is because you all have, yourselves, hit women or children or had close friends to do so and you feel you’ve been collectively unfairly characterized.

          For my part, I was involved – much to my great shame – in one fight with an aggressive girl. There was no punching or hitting involved, but probably some shoving (mostly on her part, she was bigger and tougher than me) involved. Nonetheless, I was immediately mortified that I had not been able to just make myself walk away.

          Of course, I was seven at the time, but still, I was mortified.

          You, fellas?

          Glenn, if you’re saying there’s nothing wrong with it and you’ve done it yourself, why not come right out and admit it?

          And as to you saying it’s none of my business… you made it our business when YOU brought up your experiences to make the case you’re trying to make. You’re the one who brought up your experiences, not me.

          Since you have apparently been involved in some rough stuff and since you are suggesting there’s nothing wrong with it, in the right circumstances, why not bring it up as a case study?

          ~Dan

          • It’s not that I read your mind. You say that your experiences are merely anecdotal, but then suggest that others are embellishing or inventing their experiences, and that somehow yours trump others’.

            Yes, you always say, “well that’s just MY personal experience”, but then go on to dismiss ours because of yours. This happens LITERALLY all the time when discussing the poor and same sex marriage. Yes LITERALLY every time.

          • Given Glenn’s behavior, I’m starting to wonder if this half-hearted defense of men who hit is because you all have, yourselves, hit women or children or had close friends to do so and you feel you’ve been collectively unfairly characterized.

            Why in the world would you even come to such a non sequitur of a conclusion? Just to start trouble?

            Glenn, if you’re saying there’s nothing wrong with it and you’ve done it yourself, why not come right out and admit it?

            Because individual incidents in my life are none of your business and not germane to the topic of the blog.

            And as to you saying it’s none of my business… you made it our business when YOU brought up your experiences to make the case you’re trying to make.
            Wrong. I was making a point to counter you claims. Details are not necessary.

            Since you have apparently been involved in some rough stuff and since you are suggesting there’s nothing wrong with it, in the right circumstances, why not bring it up as a case study?

            Not germane to the post. The post is about the myth that only men are abusers.

  18. paynehollow says:

    Glenn…

    Are you saying there are some instances where you have had to hit women and/or children to save yourself, Big Man?
    I merely pointed out your eisegesis – which is routine for you – and demonstrated I never even hinted at that.

    The TOPIC was men hitting women. You defended the actions – at times, WHEN the man was being beaten upon by women. You went on to say, IN THAT CONTEXT of men hitting women, ” I have been in, and even know of others who have been in, situations where it was not possible to leave and the only recourse was self-defense…”

    Which sounds like you were implying that you had actually hit women. To try to confirm if what it SEEMED like was actually what happened, I then ASKED YOU the question, “Have you ‘had to’ hit women or children?”

    Again, I ASKED the question because IT SEEMED like that’s what you were saying. Admittedly, I did this with a sneer (“big boy”) because I find hitting women detestable. Nonetheless, it remained a question, not an accusation. You can tell by the little curly-cue above the period at the end of the question.

    This is the second time in this short thread that you’ve confused a question for a declaration.

    I will also note that you have not answered the question. HAVE you been in situations where you felt compelled to hit women, Glenn?

    Glenn…

    So now, how about demonstrating what words I “put in your mouth”!

    Done, and done.

    ~Dan

  19. AHA!! You used eisegesis to make the context that wasn’t there. I specifically left the statement genderless; the statement was to counter YOUR argument that there was always a way to walk away or leave a situation rather than to put up a defense. YOU read into a context that wasn’t there. Typical of you.

    There is no need to comment on the rest of your garbage because it is answered by demonstrating that YOU forced YOUR context into MY statement.

  20. paynehollow says:

    …and still, you don’t answer the question.

    Glenn, how many times have you “had to” fight your way out of situations? What was the context? That might be interesting to know.

    If you were attacked by an actual gang (and actually attacked), I may well agree with you that, sure, you felt like you had to fight to defend yourself. I’m not coming out against personal self-defense. You can tell by the way I never said that in my words.

    Were all those self-defense moments against one guy? Against many guys?

    I have no beef against actual self defense. What I have seen in my experience (for what it’s worth) and from what I’ve read in research (not that “research” matters to Glenn) is that oftentimes, you find people who end up in fights repeatedly, whereas, another person in the same situations may not end up in a fight… that there is something about some people that brings out the fight in themselves and others. Oftentimes, if a person is intimidated and afraid, they will be more prone to fight, which is why some martial arts instructors will suggest the training as part of peacemaking efforts – when you have the confidence NOT to fight, you are less likely to end up “needing” to fight.

    Not that this applies in all situations, there are genuine self-defense moments, it’s just that, in my opinion and experience, those are rare and often avoidable. [NOTE: Not that my experience means it’s true for everyone, Glenn… you can tell by the way I didn’t say that…]

    ~Dan

    • Glenn, how many times have you “had to” fight your way out of situations? What was the context? That might be interesting to know.

      It’s none of your business. The point is that there are times when people can’t just walk away and leave, as you were so adamant about above.

      “Rare and unavoidable” depends upon where you live, doesn’t it? You really shouldn’t keep putting up your limited experience as if it means anything of value to the subject at hand.

    • I had to fight many people during my time as a Deputy Sheriff. I had to use physical force on at least half a dozen women.

  21. paynehollow says:

    Oh, sorry, didn’t see this before my last post. Thanks for the witness, John. Would you like to describe the circumstances?

    By physical force, do you mean hitting or do you mean restraining. In my role in mental health, we learned about Safe Physical Management of what to do in cases where you’ve failed to “talk down” a potentially violent person and how to safely restrain them. I’m sure cops have that same sort of training, no?

    ~Dan

    • I’ve had to take people down to the ground. It hurts. I’ve used pepper spray. I’ve used joint locks for pain compliance.

      In my personal life I’ve been in fights, and no, running isn’t an option, it would have meant that I’d get jumped from behind and been pummled.

      • paynehollow says:

        Thank you for your service as a police officer, a tough job, to be sure.

        As to the personal fights, I just have to wonder where you all live and what do you do that you find yourself not in just A fight, but fightS. I have lived and worked on some dangerous streets for 30 years now and have never “had” to be in a fight. I’ve confronted violent situations, but nothing where I “had” to fight. Nor has ANYONE I know except for some of my mentally ill friends (which is not a knock on you, just stating reality).

        ~Dan

        • It was while in school. I live in New england. It sounds like you’re finding my claim that there was no safe retreat option dubious because YOU’VE never found yourself in that position.

        • How does one determine the reality of whether or not one’s neighborhood, or the streets one which one has lived or worked, is truly dangerous? How can the reader know that one’s description of “dangerous streets” is accurate and not a subjective description based on the describer’s personal fears and perceptions?

          One “doesn’t have to fight” only during that period before assaults are perpetrated. Once an assault has begun, one is IN a fight. There is no choosing at that point, except to flee and hope one can outrun the rain of fists and/or weapons.

          Then there is the assailant, who can be either anti-social or Asocial. The first wants to compete as much as dominate. The second wants to destroy and/or kill and often gives no definitive warning before launching his assault. A woman, one’s spouse or fiance, can be either as well.

          Just some clarification. Here’s some more:

          “I guess if Marshall was just indicating a one time incident and by “continue” he meant, continue to take abuse that one time, that might be different. But even then, especially in the case of a smaller person doing the abuse, you should be able to walk away.”

          I followed up my comment with a reference to the vows one takes when tying the knot with another. For the Christian, vows and promises are sacred. Our “yes” is to mean “yes” and our “no” to mean “no”, but to swear an oath means a contract with God and must be kept. While long, sex-free courtships should expose to each other character flaws, it is possible for other flaws to develop after a vow is taken. Some people actually consider this before taking the vow to love forever until death puts an end to it. Leaving the relationship for such honorable people isn’t easy regardless of the level of wackiness in the spouse.

          So now you have a problem with someone who is expected, by his own self, to take the abuse because he made a promise to love forever, having taken his woman as his wife for better or for worse. The vow usually doesn’t have a qualifier on either. Better or worse. Now put the guy and his wacky wife in an elevator as Ray Rice and his fiance were. How does one walk away? He restrains her, puts her in a bear hug. She flails and screams nastiness. The elevator stops, the door opens, he releases her and intends to walk away. She’s not done and follows him, striking him, kicking him, etc, etc, etc. He pleads, she ignores and continues. He runs, she runs after him. She’s faster and he can’t shake her.

          • With all due respect, and I’m really just making a point, Dan, don’t take this rhetorical point as an insult.

            When you talk about being amid the dangerous streets, how do we know that you’re not just an oversensitive person who is scared easily? Danger is a matter of perspective. The neighborhood I work in, there’s been 3 murders in this year, I see hand to hand drug transactions multiple times daily, I get propositioned by prostitutes who are doped out of their mind, I see people fighting, literally throwing down, and have been not more than 50 feet from a shooting. This neighborhood is the epitome of dangerous but I feel relatively safe in it. However, most people outside the neighborhood do not.

  22. paynehollow says:

    John…

    It’s not that I read your mind. You say that your experiences are merely anecdotal, but then suggest that others are embellishing or inventing their experiences, and that somehow yours trump others’.

    You are a casual liar, John. Get help, for your own sake.

    John…

    This happens LITERALLY all the time when discussing the poor and same sex marriage. Yes LITERALLY every time.

    If this were true, it would be easy enough to simply find one example of this and demonstrate, “Here, Dan, is where you do it, when you say…”

    IF it were true. But you won’t post an example precisely because you can’t post an example because it is entirely false and you are a bearer of false witness. I hope you keep doing this because you are just sorely deluded, and not because you are a deliberate liar when you get backed into a corner.

    The absence of ANY evidence will bear witness to the false nature of the claim and all can see the claim for what it is.

    ~Dan

    • Are you asking me to comb through my posts? You rely on that don’t you, that I might not be willing to sift through 25,000 other comments to find an example? Dan, you do it every time the issue of the poor and same sex marriage comes up. You talk about all the work you do with the poor and how they’re all motivated to work and succeed but just cant. You then discount my experience that most could find work if they weren’t making poor life decisions. Then you claim that the little old lady lesbians you know who’ve been monogamous for 30 years demonstrates that the studies where homosexuals even self report that they’re promiscuous is somehow skewed.

      Save it for someone who doesn’t know your games already.

    • “You are a casual liar, John.”

      I guess we’re all liars now. Glenn just concurred with John’s assessment of dealing with you, Dan. I would have to concur as well. I’m going to wager that Bubba and Craig, to name just two more, would concur also. John’s comments are accurate. Yours is a very one-sided, in your favor, manner of discourse. We’ve come to expect it. It is so common that we take it for granted.

      • I have witnesses what John has stated about Trabue. Witnessed it often. John is not the liar. Trabue is. He has been proven to be one more times than I can count. But that is routine for a false-teaching heretic.

  23. paynehollow says:

    John…

    It was while in school. I live in New england. It sounds like you’re finding my claim that there was no safe retreat option dubious because YOU’VE never found yourself in that position.

    By “in school,” you mean when you were a child/teen? I was speaking of as an adult, have you ever “had” to fight.

    And that I assess the story behind your examples is in no way to say I don’t believe that you believed you felt you had no other options. I’m just noting that, in my world and in my circles, I don’t know adults who get into fights, except those with mental illness or some severe disadvantages.

    Which is not to say that it doesn’t happen. I’m just wondering what it is about different cultures where it does happen in some worlds/cultures and not in others? Perhaps some cultures are rougher around the edges than others and where fighting is viewed differently?

    ~Dan

  24. paynehollow says:

    John…

    You talk about all the work you do with the poor and how they’re all motivated to work and succeed but just cant. You then discount my experience that most could find work if they weren’t making poor life decisions.

    1. I have not said the poor are all motivated to work. I don’t agree. There ARE poor people, rich people and middle class people who are not motivated to work. You’ve misunderstood my words.

    2. That I strive to assess the depth of your experience is in no way to discount it. I have no doubt that, as you have attested to, in passing, you have seen people that it appeared to you were making poor life decisions. I’m just noting the rational observation that seeing people in passing and being actually acquainted with them and their circumstances or acting as a case manager with them are two entirely different levels of experience in working with/observing the poor.

    Do you think that the person who has watched a few minutes here and there of some art show on TV over the years, that their experience in fishing is anything comparable to the person who has spent years of their life actually doing art?

    Noting the depth of experience is NOT to discount your experience, it is simply, factually, literally noting the depth of experience and that not all experiences are equal in value.

    Do you disagree?

    ~Dan

  25. paynehollow says:

    Sorry, that “fishing” should be “doing art…” Changed analogies.

  26. paynehollow says:

    You all have “witnessed it,” it “happens all the time,” AND YET, you can provide no examples, not one, of it happening. Yes, if you all are making the same claim as John, you are all bearing false witness. You. Can. Not. Support. The. Claim.

    And yet, that does not matter a bit to you.

    Do you all have NO humility at all? Do you all live and breathe, “I think it, therefore, it IS…”:?

    What arrogance.

    ~Dan

  27. paynehollow says:

    John…

    When you talk about being amid the dangerous streets, how do we know that you’re not just an oversensitive person who is scared easily?

    As to the neighborhoods I walk through every day and nearly every night, that I work and worship and play in, it’s downtown Louisville, KY. It’s certainly not the Cabrini Green Projects of Chicago, but neither is it downtown Mayberry.

    In the block on which I live, there have been several murders in just the last few years. On this Crime Rate in Louisville page…

    http://www.city-data.com/crime/crime-Louisville-Kentucky.html

    It shows Louisville with a high rate of violent crime. It looks like that page has data that is a bit old, but things have not changed that much.

    The point being: Murders happen. Assaults happen. Men abusing women happens. And, I’m sure, women abusing men happens, although, I’ve never seen it.

    You can do the research yourself, or not. I’m not making it up. I walk through housing projects on my way to church, I walk past homeless shelters, homeless camps and mental health agencies on my way to work and church. The house next door to me is managed by the local mental health agency and we have several bi-polar and otherwise affected neighbors.

    40203. That’s my zip code. 40202, that’s where I work. 40208. That’s the other zip code I walk through. 40212. That’s where I lived before moving to my current address. They are all poor urban neighborhoods with many of the typical problems of poor urban neighborhoods. For 25 years, I’ve lived, walked, worked in these neighborhoods.

    My daughter works at an ice cream joint which was just robbed at gun point last week (she was not there, no one was hurt, thankfully).

    The data exists, I’m not making anything up.

    And yet, none of my friends, my colleagues, my church members who also live, work and walk through these neighborhoods or work with some of these people have “needed” to get in to a fight.

    When you work with the mentally ill and get Safe Physical Management types of training, you learn how to restrain people in worse case scenarios. However, the main thing you learn is that if it gets to the point where you need to do SPM, you’ve already messed up in failing to “talk people down…” Most people, most of the time, can be talked down out of a fit of violence. I don’t have it on hand, but I’ve read research to that effect. Not only that, but as noted, I’ve experienced it first hand, as have many of my friends and colleagues.

    Which is not to say that your experiences are not actual or the feelings you had that you needed to fight, you did not experience, just that I also have a good bit of real life, daily experience and that I’ve read a good bit of research on the topic and that is worth something, as well.

    ~Dan

    • So Dan, you’re saying that you walk by all those things on your way to work and church? So early in the morning and early Sunday morning…when the danger is at its lowest because they’re all still sleeping. Bravo.

      • paynehollow says:

        And I walked out two nights ago to help when someone caught the next door neighbor’s motorcycle on fire, and I talk with the bi-polar neighbors on a near-daily basis, and I walk home in the evenings and I stop to intervene with the man who was assaulting his girlfriend and… who in hell are you, John? What do you know?

        You guys are bloviating children, afraid of your own shadow, no doubt pissing your pants at the thought of having to face the “bad guys” in scary neighborhoods. Your arrogance is like a blinder, placed over your eyes, making scary people all around and you the heroes of your own little dramas playing out in your heads.

        Get serious.

        ~Dan

        • You didn’t do any of that

        • You guys are bloviating children, afraid of your own shadow, no doubt pissing your pants at the thought of having to face the “bad guys” in scary neighborhoods. Your arrogance is like a blinder, placed over your eyes, making scary people all around and you the heroes of your own little dramas playing out in your heads.

          See, what did I tell you!!?!? Trabue sets himself up as better than anyone else. He is the standard by which we are all to be measured! And he said that was putting words into his mouth. HAH! Gotcha, Trabue — you foolish little boy.

      • paynehollow says:

        You asked for some data about the neighborhoods I walk, work and live in. I gave it to you. You reported three murders in the neighborhood where you work this year, I pointed out the ~nine murders this year in the neighborhood where I LIVE every day, the dozens of assaults each month, the arson next door two nights ago, the armed robbery at my daughter’s job… that still isn’t enough for you.

        You then pull out of your ass that I’m only around these places early in the morning, when I’m telling you I live, work and WALK through these neighborhoods every day AND night (I don’t drive, as a rule, I walk nearly everywhere I go, daytime and nighttime).

        I’m sorry, I’m sure you MUST be more rational in real life than you present yourself here, but you are coming off here as a lying, argumentative, fearful, delusional prick. Learn to present yourself better, man, you’re embarrassing yourself and your family.

        ~Dan

  28. paynehollow says:

    …or here, this is what I was looking for: The city’s actual data of crimes in my zip code…

    http://portal.louisvilleky.gov/dataset/crime-data

    You can see there the ~35 homicides in Louisville this year, nine of which happened in my zip code, more in the neighboring zip codes I walk through. You can see the 25 or so assaults that have occurred just in September in my zip code.

    Research away.

  29. paynehollow says:

    Last question to remain unanswered:

    Do you think all experience is equal: That the mailman who walks through a poor neighborhood and the social worker who has researched and studied poverty and worked as a case manager directly with the poor are equally informed as to the causes and effects of poverty in the lives of the poor? Or do you make room for the notion that people who actually work for years in a field might possibly be better-informed on the topic?

    Because it sounds as if you are taking the former position and complaining when someone points to the lack of depth of your experience as if pointing out reality is some sort of an attack.

    ~Dan

    • Social workers are trained to give people the benefit of the doubt and in my experience do so to the point of overlooking the obvious. They tend to make excuses for people because they’re trying to help. So no, I don’t generally trust social workers’ experiences. Look at all the kids they leave with negligent parents, yet try to remove kids from homes where parents let them walk to school for a block or two in safe neighborhoods.

    • Not long ago, Dan, you gave a list of at least a dozen cases where, in your opinion, poverty struck all by itself. I went down the list and showed, with one, maybe two possible exceptions, how each of those examples were the result of choices made or not made. Those choices could only lead to a lesser economic outcome. Also, it may have been in that same thread where I linked to a video of a guy talking about his book, which was the result of research that speaks to overcoming poverty, which ALSO dealt with choices made or not made.

      The problem is that you believe that the social workers you admire do not suffer from their own biases and preconceived notions.

  30. paynehollow says:

    Wow.

    To hell with the professionals, we can save a bunch of money if we just pay average joes with zero training and work experience in charge of repairing our cars, fixing our hearts and building space ships. After all, it ain’t rocket science.

    I say, to hell with that sort of arrogance. Literally.

    And you can trust me on that theological judgment because I am not a professional theologian, so, I guess I’m gold…

    ~Dan

  31. paynehollow says:

    Is this your opinion of all professionals, or are you just ignorantly biased against social workers? Do you also distrust the mechanics, water quality professionals, nurses and others who’ve actually, you know, studied and prepared to be in their profession, or is this uninformed bias just against social workers? How about the mental health workers that social workers often work hand-in-hand with?

    John, I’d love to invite you to my wife’s work, where they help homeless families stay together, homeless and addicted veterans get back on their feet, homeless children somehow still get a good educational experience, etc, every day of the week, every week of the year. Or to my church on any given morning, where professionals help the homeless have a safe place to stay in the mornings, get medical assistance, get mental health assistance, get addiction recovery assistance. Or probably to any of the professional social workers’ place of work in your community. Then, you could perhaps begin to see how VERY ill-informed and factually mistaken you are. Perhaps then you would see the arrogance of continually fighting against social work types of programs, but then complaining when they don’t do enough! Man.

    I’m posting that comment of your over on my blog, since it’s so deeply buried here. That sort of anti-intellectualism, anti-professionalism, anti-experience quote needs to be shone to the light of day that it might wither on the vine and die.

    Get help, man… From a professional, not some random guy who has seen a TV show about psychology, but an actual professional in the business with experience and all.

    ~Dan

  32. paynehollow says:

    John…

    Look at all the kids they leave with negligent parents, yet try to remove kids from homes where parents let them walk to school for a block or two in safe neighborhoods.

    1. How many kids, John? How many kids are left with negligent parents? What is the line for removing those kids? Who makes that call?

    2. Your second example is pretty specific. Has that EVER happened in the real world or did you pull that from your rectum? IF something like that has happened, how much do you want to bet that you are failing to tell the whole story? That perhaps you are ignorant of the whole story?

    Social workers do not remove children from homes because they walk to school. Does not happen in the real world. How much time do you think social workers have?

    ~Dan

  33. paynehollow says:

    A social worker walked into a home – one of millions in the US where children walk to school – and said, “WHAT?? Your kids walk to school? TWO BLOCKS? I’m taking them!”, is that what you’re saying? I rather doubt it. On what basis would anyone say that?

    Source?

    Perhaps, PERHAPS, if you had one social worker who was crazy – who had an actual psychotic break – then that one crazed social worker might do something like that. BUT (and this is critical) you made the claim that “social workers are doing this…” as if removing children from homes for no reason was a real thing that happens out there.

    It ain’t and it’s delusional to make the suggestion, just as it is delusional to say that you, with NO training, NO experience and NO expertise in the field, presumably with no social work schooling (Correct?) or even KNOWLEDGE of what happens in social work schools… that such a person is in a better position to reach informed conclusions than experts in the field.

    Do you also think that a person untrained and wholly unfamiliar with cars is in a better position to decide how to fix a car than a mechanic? That a person entirely unfamiliar and unschooled in biology is in a better position than a water professional on the health of waterways? That an untrained person is in a better position to know how to deal with mental illness than a mental health professional with schooling and training? Is there ANY expert out there that you don’t know more than?

    This is delusional talk, man.

    ~Dan

    • What about the professionals in the links John posted to support his premise for this post, Dan? John certainly deferred to them. You haven’t. Are you delusional? Do you know more than those professionals?

    • Trabue,

      You really need to keep up with the news. The case John noted was all over the news. It is a common situation recently. Another pre-pubescent child was allowed to play at a playground by himself, and the mother was charged with neglect. Many similar cases have been in the news recently.

      Perhaps if you weren’t so wrapped up with psychobabblers you’d realize that the problems they cause are REAL

  34. paynehollow says:

    John is the one who denigrated a whole class of professionals based on, what? The stories of social workers as found in the funny papers? His personal experiences with a handful of social workers?

    And I have not suggested ONE TIME that there was anything wrong with the professionals John listed. I pointed out other stats from other professionals and asked what of THAT data? Those who are interested in Truths and Facts do not stop when they find ONE source (or four) that agrees with their presumptions. They look at all the data.

    And they don’t just dismiss them because the data was from “social workers, HAH!” or “mental health professionals… AS IF!”

    ~Dan

  35. paynehollow says:

    Glenn…

    Another pre-pubescent child was allowed to play at a playground by himself, and the mother was charged with neglect.

    Sigh. Source?

  36. paynehollow says:

    http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/31/living/florida-mom-arrested-son-park/

    1. Seven year old.
    2. Nearly half mile, across roads to park.

    Sounds questionable to me. And it was the police who charged the mother, based on the law there, not a social worker.

    Do you, therefore, reject the judgment of all police officers, Glenn?

    ~Dan

  37. There is nothing wrong with a 7-year old being 1/2 mile away from home. NOTHING. Some of us teach our children to travel across streets, etc. We train our children to eventually be adults.

    The laws of this type are made based on the advice of social workers. Cities don’t just come up with fiat laws like this.

    Do you, therefore, reject the judgment of all police officers, Glenn?

    Wow, excellent logic fallacy, you fool!

  38. paynehollow says:

    ? So, Glenn, tell us all: What IS the “right” age where a child can walk half a mile away across streets on their own? Can parents start sending them out at the age of five? Three?

    Do you think there is ANYTHING a parent can do that can be called “Neglect,” or is it entirely up to the parent? If a parent only feeds their kids chocolate bars and potato chips, twice a day, is that neglect that needs an intervention by authorities? If a parent lets a three year old take a rifle and go hunting on their own, is that neglect? Five year old?

    Have you deemed yourself The Authority to whom all other people Must Bow on these topics? If so, on what basis?

    Or are you an anarchist and think parents can do ANYthing they want with their kids?

    On what basis should anyone heed your opinion?

    As to me not seeing every news story that happens in the US, I will gladly own up to that. Of course, you don’t see every news story that happens in the US, either, so, what does that prove?

    John, do you have a source for your 2 block claim? I tried looking up both Glenn’s claim and yours and I found Glenn’s, but not yours. Did you make it up or is it a real news story and, if so, please provide the source.

    As with Glenn’s story, I’d bet that you’re misrepresenting reality, IF it happened at all.

    Glenn…

    The laws of this type are made based on the advice of social workers. Cities don’t just come up with fiat laws like this.

    sigh. Do you have a source for THIS claim?

    No, of course not. You all don’t need sources, you have brilliance shining out your asses where you can just pluck little gold nuggets of poopy “fact” anytime you want.

    Excrement is what it is.

    Glenn…

    Do you, therefore, reject the judgment of all police officers, Glenn?

    Wow, excellent logic fallacy, you fool!

    ? How so? You appear to reject all professionals (do you SEE the arrogance of that??) in the social work and mental health fields, and probably a good number of professionals and experts in the medical fields as well (am I right?) because you disagree with the behavior/perceived behavior of a few, do you also generalize that sort of ignorant, arrogant contempt for all police officers based on the actions of a few, as well? It’s a reasonable question.

    You’d be a fool not to answer it, wouldn’t you (since you are so attached to the word)?

    ~Dan

    • Dan, I see kindergartners do it all the time where I work.

      • This is getting ridiculous. Anecdotal evidence, no matter who puts it out there, is anecdotal. Just because someone has some degree of training does not automatically make second or third hand stories somehow more authoritative. One the other hand, it is quite possible to make accurate observations about the world around us with absolutely no training whatsoever.

        Part of the problem is that we try to extrapolate our personal experiences outside of the context they exist in. For example, someone who is engaged with these types of things in multiple different areas in a metro are of 3.5 million with a significant variety of immigrant communities, would certainly have a broader scope of experience that someone who focuses on a small sector of a city of 300,000. Not that either is more or less valid, but it stands to reason that to extrapolate from a small sample is less useful that to extrapolate from a larger sample.

        It’s strange to see how ridiculous this has gotten when everyone here seems to agree on the basic premise that domestic violence is bad.

    • Trabue,

      I just checked with google map and discerned that when I was 7 in the 2nd grade (and through first half of 6th grade) the school I walked to daily – including dead of winter regardless of snowfall – is just over 150’ short of 1/2 mile, with 8 – that’s right 8 – streets to cross from my house. It was routine for that elementary school, since kids even farther away attended there. This was a city school. We walked unattended every.single.day during the school year, and very often during the summer to use the playground. Should my parents – and all the other parents of these 1st-6th graders, who lived that distance and farther have been punished? How old a child is permitted to be alone is the PARENTS’ decision – not any government entity. Not every child the same age is of the same mental abilities.

      Are there things a parent can do which CAN be called neglect or abuse, requiring governmental intervention? Of course.

      Have you deemed yourself The Authority to whom all other people Must Bow on these topics?
      Since I’ve never even intimated such a thing, I’d say it’s foolish of you to ask such a stupid question.

      I never claimed to see every new story, but I don’t call someone a liar when they said something was in the news – the way you did with John.

      Do you have a source for THIS claim?
      Um, no. Like most people, we read such things and move and, not realizing we should keep everything we read and file it so that one day we can prove to Trabue that we know what we are talking about. You really need to read some good books on sociology and social issues besides the biased liberal crap you read.

      You appear to reject all professionals (do you SEE the arrogance of that??) in the social work and mental health fields, and probably a good number of professionals and experts in the medical fields as well

      Only a fool like you would even suggest something so stupid. There is no “appearance” of any such thing. Of course, you find that things always “appear” to be what you want them to “appear” to be – such as to you it “appears” that Genesis is all mythology, and it “appears” that God approves of same-sex fake marriage. What a marvelous power you have to find “appearances” that just happen to line up with your ideology. And, no, that paragraph was NOT a “reasonable question” in anyone’s mind but your warped one.

      I’m not a fool, which is why I answered. But you are a fool for your entire comment string and your theology and your ideology!

  39. paynehollow says:

    Indeed. It makes one wonder why John would couch such an awful behavior in such a manner as to make it sound like he’s saying, “it’s awful…. BUT….”

    Craig, do you think a mail carrier who walks through poor neighborhoods daily or a social work with a history of working directly with the poor and troubled, and who has studied and conducted research is most likely to have the better and more complete picture of poverty issues? Do you agree that it is rather silly – or even delusional – to condemn a whole class of professionals – people who are studied and deeply – not shallowly – experienced on a topic as being “untrustworthy” or “psychobabblers” or otherwise unqualified because maybe you have some experience with a handful of these professionals and you’ve read some stories in the news, say, amounting to (let’s be generous) 100 cases (out of tens of thousands of professionals) who were less than professional? Do you think the mailman is in a place to say “social workers, as a class, are not trustworthy…” or the untrained blogger is in a place to say “nearly all ‘mental health’ workers are charlatans…”? Or do you think that is rather presumptuous?

    You trust mechanics to repair your car, don’t you? You trust doctors to treat your ills, don’t you? On what rational basis would anyone write off A WHOLE category of professionals and think that they – untrained in the field – are in a BETTER place to make judgments on the topic? The only reason I can see is that they are delusional or so blinded by their cultural biases as to be self-deluded and arrogant as hell.

    This IS ridiculous, to be sure. You should talk with your comrades.

    ~Dan

    • Dan,
      Perhaps you were somehow confused by my comments I’m not sure how but that seems to be the case.

      My point is that anecdotal is anecdotal, certainly in this case that is true. You seem to think that throwing out vague generalities about anymomous people should somehow be compelling. You seem to presume that you can extrapolate these second and third hand anecdotes from one small specific location in such a way as to trump others experiences.

      So I will repeat, anecdotes are anecdotes. Nothing more nothing less. Are your second hand anecdotes better than John’s? Honestly I don’t know and don’t care.

      Why must you insist on imposing your anececdotes from your limited experience on others? Why must you try so hard to denigrate others experiences simply because they are different from your small corner of a small city in a relatively small state?

      • paynehollow says:

        YES. And John’s “I see those poor people every day when I casually walk through poor neighborhoods, therefore, I am better able to say what’s going on with poor people than professionally trained and experienced people who deal with them in-depth on a regular basis,” IS INDEED stupidly, ignorantly, shallowly ANECDOTAL. Whereas professionally-educated, research-based, peer-reviewed, experienced, in-depth, research-BASED professionals are working on a more informed level than a casual observer?

        What is hard to understand about that? Why must you defend the irrational?

        DO you think that a casual observer is on equal footing with an educated, experienced, in-depth professional, when it comes to making apt observations about the field in question?

        It’s a ridiculous question for me to even have to ask. OF course, they’re not on equal footing. That is NOT to say anything negative about the casual observer other than noting the reality that he is a CASUAL OBSERVER.

        Take Glenn’s repeated STUPIDASS claims that the mental health field is a fraud, do you agree that those sorts of claims are irrational at best and delusional at worst?

        Your problem is the “whole illusion of equity” approach to news that Fox News and others take: You DON’T have to present a Young Earth Creationist and an actual scientist’s views on a news story about scientific questions in order to be “fair and balanced…” the two are not on equal footing. Rationally speaking.

        ~Dan

        • So, your position is that you agree that anecdotes are anecdotes. Except when you use them, because your second/third hand anonymous sources are quite obviously above reproach and must be believed without question sight unseen.

          Not only must your anonymous sources be accepted without question, but we must also extrapolate what happens in 3-4 zip codes in a small city in the south as being normative for the rest of the country.

          If you were putting forth actual verifiable peer reviewed documented sourced from a wide spectrum of the country you would have a point. Unfortunately you put forth ” some people I know….” or whatever else you trot out with no support other than “because I say they’re experts”, and expect others to just roll over.

          I know you have mentioned your memory problems, so I’ll remind you that I work with these folks daily, and have for years. In fact I am a case worker. So pardon me if I’m not impressed with your second hand anonymous “experts”. I think 20 odd years of working with the disadvantaged in two metro areas that are larger and most likely more diverse than Louisville just might make me reasonably credible on the topic.

          So keep insisting that your anecdotes are better than everyone else’s, if it makes you feel better.

          But remember secondhand anonymous anecdotes are still anecdotes.

        • Take Glenn’s repeated STUPIDASS claims that the mental health field is a fraud, do you agree that those sorts of claims are irrational at best and delusional at worst?

          Well, let’s see. There is no such thing as “mental health” because the mind is intangible – it cannot be ill. The term was developed by psychobabblers to provide fodder for their unscientific field. A field, by the way, invented and developed by atheists! What is irrational and “STUPIDASS” is people like Trabue defending a field which has caused more harm than good throughout history. Of course Trabue apparently is rather lacking is studying such a field from an unbiased, objective viewpoint because he champions the field.

          And your “actual scientist” contrasted to “Young Earth Creationist” is an obviously totally ignorant statement, because there are thousands of “actual scientists” who are YEC!

          The more comment Trabue posts, the more ignorant and foolish he proves himself to be.

    • A social worker is more likely to see an act. For example, the people in my neighborhoods don’t care if I see them smoking weed, shooting meth, and whatnot. How many social workers sit with their clients while they use?

  40. paynehollow says:

    John…

    I see kindergartners do it all the time where I work.

    ? Do what? What’s your point? That kindergartners walk half a mile alone all the time?

    That still leaves my questions unanswered (no surprise there):

    Are you saying there should be NO guidelines in place as to what constitutes negligent parenting? That it’s okay to send a 3 year old FIVE miles on their own and the gov’t should get its big brother nose out of the family’s affair?

    Or, are you able to say along with all rational people, YES, there are some lines that can reasonably be drawn?

    If so, then we just disagree on where to draw the line (or more precisely, you disagree with the police in Florida, I have made no hard judgment beyond noting that it seems questionably wise to let such a young child go so far unaccompanied). Regardless, that one story about the police in Florida is still is not evidence of social workers making bad judgments as a class. At all.

    Your claim, as always, remains unsupported.

    ~Dan

  41. paynehollow says:

    Less it be unclear, let me make it clear: I am NOT saying that you must be an authority, schooled and experienced, on a topic in order to have an opinion, or to even have a reasonable opinion.

    I’m saying that it is presumptuous and arrogant and delusional to say that ALL of this or that class of professionals, schooled and experienced, are less wise or knowledgable or informed as you (generic “you”) are, as a non-professional. I would never dream of telling a mechanic that he and “nearly all” mechanics are untrustworthy and foolish. Why would I? I would never dream of telling a therapist that all mental health workers are frauds and charlatans, even if I disagreed with that particular therapist on a particular therapy and that I know best how to handle all people’s psychoses better than most of their field. Why would I? That would be arrogant and presenting with delusions of grandeur.

    I may have opinions contrary to professionals, and I may express those opinions, but never would I think to write off the whole class, or nearly the whole class. That would just be strange and arrogant beyond even what I am capable of…

    ~Dan

  42. paynehollow says:

    Craig…

    Not that either is more or less valid, but it stands to reason that to extrapolate from a small sample is less useful that to extrapolate from a larger sample.

    Indeed. My point is that a therapist who works with the mentally ill every day, KNOWS about their story and situation, who works with dozens of folk with mental health concerns weekly, every week, every month…. that such a person IS going to be in a better place to make evaulations that are informed than someone who merely walks past the mentally ill on a regular basis and does not know their stories/situations in any depth at all, IF at all.

    The larger the amount of training, experience and exposure, the more it stands to reason that they are extrapolating from a larger and more informed sampling base. This is just rational. And to write off an entire (or nearly entire) class of professionals as being LESS reliable than you are (generic you) with no training or depth of experience, well, that is just delusional.

    Agreed?

    ~Dan

  43. paynehollow says:

    Craig…

    Are your second hand anecdotes better than John’s? Honestly I don’t know and don’t care.

    I have worked in the mental health field. My wife works in the mental health/social work fields for decades. I have worked, volunteering, in the mental health and homeless fields for years. I have received education in the field. My wife has a master’s degree in social work and has helped conduct research on issues of homelessness and poverty. Additionally, I have lived, worked, worshiped and played in poor neighborhoods for ~26 years. I LIVED with homeless people for about eight years. This is all first hand experience, IN DEPTH experience.

    John, on the other hand, according to his testimony, WALKS THROUGH poor neighborhoods on a regular basis, but does not live there, has casual, not in-depth, experience casually viewing poverty, and has not been educated on the topics. His IS second hand, and casual second hand information at that.

    Now, GOD BLESS JOHN for walking through poor neighborhoods, tough neighborhoods every day and interacting with people – even slightly – as he does for his job. That certainly IS an education of sorts and not everyone would be willing to do it.

    But as you suggest, casual, second hand observations are NOT the same weight as in-depth, first hand experience. That is all I’m saying. Do you disagree? Because it seems like we’re saying the same thing with the exception that you are trying to equate my first hand and indepth experience with John’s casual second hand experience.

    ~Dan

  44. paynehollow says:

    Craig, It comes down to this:

    Glenn maintains that mental health is a phony field and denies the science behind psychiatry and psychology. You’re apparently fine with that irrational shit.

    John maintains that by WALKING THROUGH A NEIGHBORHOOD, that this makes him MORE qualified than most social workers who, HE SAYS in ignorance and with ZERO support, are “generally not trust”-worthy. You’re apparently fine with that irrational shit.

    BUT, let a liberal maintain that “not all experience is equal…” that there is such a thing as having casual, shallow knowledge of a topic and experience- and research-based deep knowledge of a topic and the two are simply not comparable… and you find that objectionable?

    So you consign and align yourselves with the irrational ones. So be it.

    In the meantime, I’ll be glad to talk to any rational folk and write you off as irrelevant, due to your irrationality, and just continue to ask questions and point to holes in the “reasoning” of the irrational and you’re collective dodging of the questions just helps confirm your irrelevancy.

    In the meantime, we adults have work to be about.

    ~Dan

    Craig, not that it matters since you’ve made your choices, but when you go to Haiti, do you let just anyone take care of procuring clean water, or do you rely upon expert experience? Do you rely on just anyone providing medical help or do you prefer, you know, experts with experience?

    Of course, on some level, I’m sure you all recognize the insanity of insisting that experience and expertise are meaningless… you’re probably just backed into a corner, hating to agree with a “liberal…” so you argue entirely irrational points. Just listen to that reasonable side of yourself and perhaps you can get to the point of, “Well, even though I disagree with Dan on some points, there really is not a thing to argue with when it comes to his point that experts DO have knowledge and experience that non-experts don’t, and not all opinions are equally valid…

    • Dan
      Could you please be less blatant about misrepresenting what I’ve said. I’m sorry that you can’t understand my point, regarding anecdotes. Your problems understanding along with your natural tendency to minimize the relevance of others experience while maximizing and appropriating the experience of people around you make it hard to focus on my point.

      Anecdotes are anecdotes. Your limited experience (or John’) do not necessarily extrapolate beyond your neighborhood. That’s it. You’re welcome to acknowledge this reality at any time.

      When I’m in Haiti I drink tap water. Perhaps making unfounded assumptions isn’t a wise move.

      • paynehollow says:

        And you don’t care if the people treating the water use swamp water that they’ve pissed in, as long as it comes out of a tap?

        If so, that would be truly insane. My guess is that you rather prefer your water to be treated/protected by someone informed, not some idiot who wipes his butt with his hand before giving the water a good stir to clean it up…

        And I’m sorry you’re not understanding reality any better than you are. Good luck with that.

        For the record, as always, I have not misrepresented you. Didn’t happen. You clearly have misunderstood another statement of mine, because it did not happen in the real world. As always, you can not cite a quote of mine where I misrepresented you. Just as John apparently can’t cite a source suggesting that social workers are out busy taking away kids for walking two blocks to school. He’s either confused, misrepresenting the story, or just mistaken in his details. Or, like Glenn, maybe out of touch with reality.

        ~Dan

        • Dan
          So you you’re an expert on clean water in the NW zone of Haiti, impressive. I’m sure you’d need an expert to tell you which water to drink, but the tiniest bit of common sense makes it a pretty simple proposition.

          I’ll try to ignore your ignorant and degrading attempt to malign either Haitians or me as one more example of your preconceptions running into reality.

          Since I’ve never suggested any of what you’ve attributed to me, nor have I endorsed the comments of anyone else, you trying to link me with things I haven’t said is clearly misrepresenting me.

          Again I’m sorry that I won’t now down to your secondhand anonymous “experts” based on simply your say so. The actual fact is, that it impossible to accurately asses any of the anecdotes that have been shared here. Given that bit of reality, I have tried to stick with the fact that anecdotes are anecdotes. I’m further mystified that you think that your really tiny local sample allows you to extrapolate anything beyond your neighborhood. Not to mention that you think it extrapolates to larger more diverse areas.

          Finally, are you really suggesting that you and your friends fix peoples problems for them?

    • Glenn maintains that mental health is a phony field and denies the science behind psychiatry and psychology. You’re apparently fine with that irrational shit.

      There are thousands of people who say the same thing, INCLUDING authors like E. Fuller Torrey who was a clinical and research psychiatrist in Washington DC, specializing in schizophrenia and other serious “mental illnesses.” He was a special assistant to the Director of the National Institute of Mental Health for five years. He wrote over a dozen books on the topics. One of my favorite books by him is Witchdoctors and Psychiatrists: The common roots of psychotherapy and its future.”

      The only field with actual science behind it is psychiatry IF they are handling cases where the brain is malfunctioning due to organic causes, which makes it a medical problem and not a counseling problem. Clinical psychology, to cite Torrey, is nothing more than “witch doctoring” and “rent a friend.” There are hundreds of competing models as to what proper clinical psychology should be, and all derived from atheistic humanistic materialism.

      There is nothing “irrational” about saying such things. What is irrational is for people to keep claiming “mental illness” when the mind is intangible. If the brain is malfunctioning for some organic reason such as illness or injury, that may mess up the thinking processes, but the MIND IS NOT ILL and CAN’T EVER BE!

  45. paynehollow says:

    John…

    How many social workers sit with their clients while they use?

    ? What do you know about the social work field? How many years/semesters have you spent learning about how social work, works?

    Do you think that schools train and organizations pay people to be intentionally ignorant, to suppose that “If I don’t see drugs, then they must be deacons at their church…”?

    AGAIN, social workers and mental health workers are there in the field regularly, they DO know 1. How to assess where they’re at; 2. How to assess if they’re telling the truth; 3. How to use drug testing if need be; 4. How to look for signs of using, of abuse, of neglect.

    That, John, is why they go to school and receive training and undergo internships and placements to gain experience. It isn’t that they go to school to learn “all people are good and will never lie to you, just give them a lollypop and widdle bitta wuv and they’ll be ALLLLL goodygoody…”

    You’re exposing your ignorance about social work and mental health professionals.

    Do you have any hard, deep, close experience with social workers? Do you have any good, reliable friends who are in the field? Ask them and learn a little bit.

    ~Dan

    • The point was that mine is more than a casual stroll through a neighborhood. I know quite a bit about my people in the neighborhoods. I’m saying they are more comfortable around me than they are around a social worker. I don’t have to assume they might be users. They use right in front of me. I’ve got drug dealers who think nothing of selling while we talk. I’ve got addicts who think nothing of buying their heroin right in front of me. I’ve got prostitutes who don’t mind giving oral to a john in the car next to me in the parking lot. I see a side of people that social workers have to assume.

  46. paynehollow says:

    And if you think social workers are not aware of it, too – without having to see it, without having to assume it – then that just exposes your ignorance further.

    Seriously, John, do you personally know even one social worker on a serious basis? Have you had even one social work/mental health class? Have you spent more than five minutes with any of the people you pass by? If so, how many? Ten minutes? 20? Do you know their names, their families, their personal history?

    Yes, yes, yes, we can casually walk through neighborhoods on a regular basis and get to know people casually. And there absolutely IS value in that, especially if it helps us to have a respect and love for those people we casually get to know. But it does not mean that you are in a better place to evaluate those people you pass by than a mental health/social work professional.

    Tell me straight: Do you think your passing by and seeing whatever it is you see makes you MORE able to know their issues and needs than a mental health/social work professional? IF you do, do you truly not see how arrogant and irrational that sounds?

    If a simple walk through is all it takes to cure the problems of the poor – no deep experience or education or research required, let’s make you poverty czar and I’m sure you’ll have things straightened out in no time. As a matter of fact, if you’re in a better place to “fix” the poor, do it, man. Quit your bragging and go out and solve those problems for them.

    Or perhaps, step back and down from your high horse just a little and admit that maybe you misspoke and can now see how arrogant and irrational that sounds.

    ~Dan

  47. paynehollow says:

    Glenn…

    Should my parents – and all the other parents of these 1st-6th graders, who lived that distance and farther have been punished?

    If you lived in Florida and it was against the law, yes, I guess so. My opinion is that I do not feel it right to threaten a parent with jail for something like this, but seven IS pretty young to be out traveling around for 1/2 mile, unattended.

    It would largely depend on the streets and neighborhoods involved. I walked two blocks to my school probably by the age of seven, but I wouldn’t have been alone. And two blocks is not 1/2 a mile.

    Again, your complaint is with the police department and the lawmakers, not with social workers, not in the story you cited, as there is nary a social worker mentioned. Apparently the lawmakers and police in that city in Florida did not feel it appropriate and I’m not there to evaluate the conditions, so I can not make a judgment call.

    MY point is that there almost certainly IS an age where letting a child walk half a mile unattended would be considered neglect, even by you… But wait…

    How old a child is permitted to be alone is the PARENTS’ decision – not any government entity.

    Are you serious?

    Then I’m done with you, you are a mental case and wholly out of touch with reality. Your irrational hatred of gov’t – or whatever it is that puts these blinders on you – is making you lose all sense of rational gov’t.

    John? Craig? Marshall? Are you also with Glenn on this “the gov’t shouldn’t be intervening even if it was a toddler out walking to Kansas to meet up with his grandmother… GOV’T STINKS!” business? Which is to say: Are you also insane/delusional/irrational to a frightening degree?

    And how about Glenn’s nutty phobia about mental health?

    There is no such thing as “mental health” because the mind is intangible – it cannot be ill. The term was developed by psychobabblers to provide fodder for their unscientific field.

    You’re giving ME grief over saying that not all experience is equal but giving a pass to this sort of detachment from reality? I know that at least Terrance would take Glenn on on this topic… no one else want to deal with the crazy old aunt living in the basement?

    ~Dan

    • Dan,

      It it ignorance or laziness that compels you to presume that anyone but Glenn holds the views he holds. Why not do us the common courtesy of dealing with people’s comments as individuals rather than to presume that all of us agree with each other. Further, why do you presume that we are required to defend or rebut them. If it bothers you so much, you do it. Don’t complain about what others do or don’t do. Personally, I rarely read Glenn’s comments.

      • paynehollow says:

        Because you spend so much time attacking, belittling and misunderstanding/misrepresenting liberals for FAR less craziness than Glenn has represented.

        For instance, why would you presume that I presume you hold those positions? I certainly don’t. They are crazy positions to hold and I can only imagine that you all would disagree with him and distance yourself from that sort of anti-intellectualism he continually presents. Why? Because it is a problem for fundamentalists and the burden is on you all to distance yourselves from the outliers.

        Beyond that, you all appear to be projecting a similar sort of anti-intellectualism, as if a mere passerby with a very shallow knowledge of facts on the ground holds views that are equally as informed as a professional. So, given that you all appear to be taking the anti-professional/anti-intellectualism stance, it is not an unreasonable question to ask, “And you do you agree with THAT level of nuttiness?”

        And it is asked exactly because I CAN’T imagine that you would agree with him.

        ~Dan

    • but seven IS pretty young to be out traveling around for 1/2 mile, unattended.

      Logic fallacy of over-generalization. Millions of parents throughout history allowed their 7-year-olds such liberty. I can demonstrate that just by the ONE school I know about.

      My complaint is indeed with the lawmakers who are usurping parental rights, and the social workers who are most likely the people who had the law made. This is what happens in many cities -the “do-gooders” in the various social work field fight for laws ostensibly to “protect the children” when all they do is unnecessarily infringe upon parental right. And yes, I am familiar with that exact scenario – social workers fighting to the law. Otherwise no one would have thought to punish parents for allowing a 7-year-old to do something perfectly safe.,

      Then I’m done with you, you are a mental case and wholly out of touch with reality.

      You are an idiot who thinks government solves everything. The U.S. government was restricted by a constitution which is totally ignored by the people now in office (and people in office for many decades – some worse than others). Why are you so bent on usurping parental rights? Because you have decided that YOU know best and everyone else is irrational.

      And now it is a “nutty phobia about mental health.” HAH, you just demonstrated your own ignorance. I have no “phobia” — i.e. “fear” – about mental health because it just doesn’t exist. You and your ilk are so stupidly biased as to ignore the common sense understanding that a mind is intangible – it is not a physical, material entity – and therefore cannot be ill!

  48. paynehollow says:

    Craig…

    I’ll try to ignore your ignorant and degrading attempt to malign either Haitians or me as one more example of your preconceptions running into reality.

    ??? Once again, you have ENTIRELY missed my point. Sorry about that, but certainly, there was no intent to degrade anyone. I’ll pass on explaining my point again and just suggest you try re-reading.

    ~Dan

  49. Ok, I’ll have to assume it’s just intellectual laziness that prevents you from dealing with people as individuals. You presume that unless I disagree with everything anyone has said that somehow that constitutes agreement. As I pointed out earlier, I usually don’t read Glenn’s comments so I rarely have any idea what he says. Maybe you shouldn’t spend so much time getting worked up about what other people do or don’t do. I must have missed the. “Dan gets to decide who I respond to” memo.

    As long as you presume that Haitians are too uninformed to know that they shouldn’t drink water they haven’t crapped in without some “expert “, you are certainly attempting to degrade.

  50. paynehollow says:

    So, you are going the full bore liar and slanderer, as well as being delusional and hypocritical? Thou shalt not, you know?

    But I guess if you truly are irrational to the degree that you are delusional, you probably just don’t understand the hypocrisy, lies and slander type of sins you’re obviously engaging in. It’s a pity.

    Truly.

    ~Dan

  51. So , because I pointed out the obvious ( anecdotes are anecdotes), because I don’t respond the way you think I should, because I take your writings at face value, because I dare to doubt the great Dan, I’m now;
    A liar
    A slanderer
    Delusional
    Hypocritical
    And
    Irrational.

    And you have the gall to ever accuse anyone of an ad hom.

    But we all know that you have a bit of history of vile personal attacks, don’t we.

    I guess it’s a waste of time to ask that you provide proof of your charges. We all know how likely proof is from you.

  52. paynehollow says:

    You are a liar because you said that I said that “presume that Haitians are too uninformed to know that they shouldn’t drink water they haven’t crapped in…” I corrected you once, already that I was saying ANYTHING about Haitians (you know, back there where I DID NOT SAY ANYTHING ABOUT HAITIANS), eliminating the possibility that you just had tragically misunderstood something I said. Instead, you repeated the falsehood. So, it is CLEARLY a false witness and since I had corrected you, it appears to be a blatant lie.

    See how language works?

    Now, it could be that you are still tragically unable to understand words and their meanings (which might be part of the irrationality to the point of delusions, I offered as a possibility earlier), so you may only be bearing false witness in extreme ignorance, rather than intentionally lying, but I already made that clear, too (although, again, if you all simply are so blinded by your biases or delusions or whatever that you can’t understand words clearly, then you probably missed that, as well).

    You are NOT taking my writings at face value, as a simple matter of fact. How do I know? Because I, the person writing these words, know what I meant and what you read into my words (meaning that was NOT there in the words themselves) is not what I meant and I am in a place to know what I meant.

    Craig, when you read extra meaning into someone’s words, you are not taking them at face value, you are extrapolating extra meaning that simply is not there.

    Seriously fellas, if this is the best you do, you probably should not reach ANY conclusions based on reading (me, scientific reports, the Bible… whatever), because you continually display an appalling inability to understand word meanings and author’s intent. If you can’t understand my few words in your own language and time, how do you expect to understand the Bible? Or science?

    Get help, guys.

    ~Dan

  53. Earlier this year, I expressed my belief that a capable adult could not honestly claim to be a Christian while denying the existence of God and the historicity of Jesus.

    “There ARE some otherwise capable adults who claim to be Christians who consider God to be merely a useful human concept and who wonder aloud about whether Jesus really walked the earth.

    “Those people are liars.”

    Dan Trabue balked.

    I would ask:

    Says who?

    “On what basis are you able to discern not only that they are mistaken, but what their inner motives are and that they are deliberately lying?

    “I hope you can see this is a pretty bold statement to make, some might even say arrogant, to aver that people who disagree with your interpretation are not only mistaken, but deliberately lying. How do you know? Because, to you, it ‘feels like’ it would be impossible for someone to reach that opinion?” [emphasis in original]

    He immediately added, “it’s POSSIBLE that person might be arguing in bad faith, I’m just noting the capacity within the human race for sincere disagreement over a wide array of what may seem like obvious topics.”

    I have no hard evidence to support the claim ‘anyone who would say that is a liar’ and don’t find it plausible that everyone who might reach such an unlikely opinion is doing so in bad faith, perforce.

    “Do you? and, if so, where is your evidence? Just in the ‘I, Bubba, don’t personally see how it’s possible, to me, Bubba, therefore, since I, Bubba, don’t see how it’s possible, it’s not’ vein of evidence?

    Funny how Dan now immediately accuses Craig of lying, how he does so without producing the evidence that he demanded of me, and how — on top of everything else — he throws around the accusation of hypocrisy.

    On what basis is Dan able to discern that Craig is deliberately lying and not just disagreeing in good faith, such that Craig (or Dan) is merely mistaken? Where is his “hard evidence” to support this avalanche of accusations, that Craig is an irrational, delusional, hypocritical, and sinful liar and slanderer?

    If a man claims to be a Christian but denies both God’s actual existence and Jesus’ literal historicity, we cannot conclude he’s a liar, but if somebody writes negative things about Dan Trabue, we apparently can draw the worst possible conclusions about the man.

    Amazing how we cannot have any confidence about the Christian gospel or the Bible’s teachings, but we must all acknowledge the saintliness of Dan’s character.

  54. “Because you spend so much time attacking, belittling and misunderstanding/misrepresenting liberals for FAR less craziness than Glenn has represented.”

    I’ll admit to misunderstanding, but the rest not so much.

    “So, given that you all appear to be taking the anti-professional/anti-intellectualism stance,…”

    Again, the fact that you have no actual proof that anyone agrees with what you describe as “anti professional” and “anti intellectual”, if you have please provide it.

    So, can you actually prove that Glenn is “anti professional”? The simple fact that he doesn’t agree with the efficacy of psychology or whatever specific things doesn’t automatically make him “anti professional”.

    To demonstrate your claim, you would need to;
    1) define professional
    2) provide a list of all jobs that fall into the category of professional
    3) provide a list of quotes where Glenn claims to be against each and every one of the professional categories on your list
    4) provide proof that Glenn’s stance in not based on rational reasons.

    failing to provide proof would seem to demonstrate that you are guilty of exactly the sins you accuse others of.

    Along the same lines, to prove your claim of “anti intellectual”, you would need to do the following.

    1) define intellectual
    2) provide proof that Glenn does not meet said definition
    3) provide proof that the sources that Glenn has cited to explain his stance are a) wrong and b) “anti intellectual”
    4) read and rebut the sources that Glenn has cited as being supportive of his position

    “…the burden is on you all to distance yourselves from the outliers.”

    Are you stating this as a universally true fact? Are you saying that “you all” need to specifically distance ourselves from every single person who says anything that you consider nutty? Do you realize that you have now made yourself liable to the charge that you support whatever nutty things folks on your side of the argument come up with?

    Ignore that last question, you’ve never held your self to the standards you hold others to.

    To be clear, I don’t agree with some things Glenn says, that’s why I don’t read his comments much. But, I’m also rational enough to be able to differentiate between individuals and deal with the specific things they say. I don’t need to default to this automatic position where I assign people to groups and don’t take the time to differentiate.

    You’d have more credibility on this, had you not allowed Alan and Geoff the freedom to say anything they wanted at your blog without any criticism from you, until your hypocrisy was pointed out. I’m sure this is one more of those areas where your memory problems will crop up, but the archives are there.

  55. “John maintains that by WALKING THROUGH A NEIGHBORHOOD, that this makes him MORE qualified than most social workers who, HE SAYS in ignorance and with ZERO support, are “generally not trust”-worthy.”

    Please provide the quote where John says this.

    “And you don’t care if the people treating the water use swamp water that they’ve pissed in, as long as it comes out of a tap?”

    This is, of course, a lie, phrased as a rhetorical question. Or it is simply a statement made from ignorance in an attempt to score cheap points.

    “If so, that would be truly insane. My guess is that you rather prefer your water to be treated/protected by someone informed, not some idiot who wipes his butt with his hand before giving the water a good stir to clean it up…”

    So, are you really suggesting that in you poor attempt to malign that you are suggesting that the “idiot” who “wipes his butt with his hand before giving the water a good stir to clean it up…”, in the context of a discussion of clean water in the NW zone of Haiti was not a Haitian? You seem to be suggesting that Haitians are “idiots” who are so “idiotic” that they don’t know enough to not crap in the drinking water. Somehow that make me a liar.

    I’m sorry that your ignorance about the water supply in the NW zone of Haiti has caused you to make some truly stupid assumptions in an attempt to make a point. But, I’m to one who is irrational.

  56. So who were you referring to when talking about folks pissing and wiping in the Haitian water supply if not Haitians? Are you suggesting that the blancs just show up in Haiti and start using the water as a pissoir? Unfortunately your bad analogy only leaves two options ( Haitians or blancs), and in either case to suggest that either of those groups does what you suggest is demeaning.

    Copy/paste is a bitch, isn’t it.

  57. For anyone who’s still interested in the topic on which this thread is based, I present this link to related info, and apologize if my attempt to link to it once again results in my entire comment being highlighted. If it has, just click on “this link to related info”.

  58. So, we have a dude who beats up women, and it’s all good.

    http://themattwalshblog.com/2014/09/24/man-or-woman/

    Under certain circumstances this could be amusing.

  59. paynehollow says:

    Craig, here are the questions I asked, in context…

    when you go to Haiti, do you let just anyone take care of procuring clean water, or do you rely upon expert experience? Do you rely on just anyone providing medical help or do you prefer, you know, experts with experience?

    Clearly, I am using the analogy to deal with the problem of rejecting the advice of experts. Understand now?

  60. Nice try Dan, the above quote despite being fairly condescending is not the quote of yours that I found problematic. The fact that you can attempt to dodge the more problematic quote with this “who me?” crap is pretty despicable.

  61. paynehollow says:

    That is THE quote from me where “haiti” was mentioned. The ONE quote.

    Not so nice, try. Are you really just engaging in blatantly, easily demonstrated falsehoods? I mean, are you not even going to try to be clever, just make things up?

    Shame on you, grow up.

    pff.

  62. Dan
    Perhaps you missed the quote that I copy pasted in an earlier comment where you jumped all over my response to the quote you chose. Your ignorance in assuming that you need an expert to understand safe drinking water in the NW zone of Haiti is what got you into this mess. But feel free to continue to double down on this, it’s amusing to see the contortions you’ll go through to act innocent.

  63. paynehollow says:

    What? THIS quote…?

    “If so, that would be truly insane. My guess is that you rather prefer your water to be treated/protected by someone informed, not some idiot who wipes his butt with his hand before giving the water a good stir to clean it up…”

    The one that I clearly pointed out to you that you had misunderstood and sent you back to my original quote?

    CLEARLY, the point of the comment is that, YES, we DO want knowledgable people to do our heart surgery, fix our cars and CLEAN OUR WATER. The point IS NOT, WAS NOT, NEVER WAS “Haitian people are stupid…” and I can not help you if you can not understand that. You. Missed. The. Point.

    Again.

    NOW, Craig, NOW do you understand that the point I’ve been making all along is the same point: That it is rational to want experts in fields do their jobs and it is IRRATIONAL to distrust experts as a group?

    NOW do you understand that?

    If so, then back off your false representation.

    If not, then you have no ability to read and understand and probably should get someone to help you go to the bathroom.

    ~Dan

    [NOTE: that LAST comment was ALSO not a commentary on Haitian people.]

  64. paynehollow says:

    Maybe that’s been your collective problem these many years: Perhaps your ideological biases has so blinded you to reason that you all are experiencing a failure in basic reading comprehension…?

    Clearly, the topic here in this last thread has been about the reliability of experts vs untrained, casual observers. I offered multiple examples/analogies… Do you want a trained mechanic to fix your car or someone who has merely seen cars in passing? Do you want a medically trained doctor or nurse to tend your medical needs or some guy who has seen many episodes of ER? Do you want someone trained and with expertise in making sure your water is clean or just some guy who has taken baths and drunk water, but has no training in clean water?

    There has been no room for reasonable doubt as to what my point is, to a normal person, I don’t believe. I think it has been abundantly clear. AND YET, you all are kicking and fighting back against the notion of trained experts. And you don’t answer the reasonable question: DO you really think that a casual observer’s experiences and knowledge outweighs a trained and experienced expert? A whole CLASS of experts?

    …which makes it sound like you DO think you’re smarter and know best than the class “social workers” or “mental health professionals…” I offered other examples of other fields to point out the obvious: That no one – not even conservatives – is stupid enough to not want a trained expert in at least some fields.

    Then the question comes back to why would someone, then, with NO training, presume to say that their judgment on matters is better than not just ONE individual expert, but the whole class?

    And again, no answer. Of course, there is no rational answer and that is why you collectively dodge these questions, it appears. Because it points to the great irrationality of holding them in the first place.

    Again, pff.

    ~Dan

  65. Dan,
    IF you original intent was to make a sweeping generalization about “experts”, then your Haiti analogy failed miserably due to your ignorance of the water situation in the NW zone of Haiti. In point of fact, it does not require an expert to find clean drinking water.

    As to your Dr. analogy, it’s fine as far as it goes, however I don’t necessarily want my ophthalmologist doing heart surgery.

    I can give you the benefit of the doubt, in that you weren’t necessarily trying to be offensive and degrading. Clearly it is reasonable to extend the context of your first comment to include your second, and clearly it is reasonable to connect the context of Haiti to your comments about people who need experts to tell them not to drink from the toilet. IF you meant no offense, I’ll take you at you word, but maybe a humble apology for an unclear analogy might be a better strategy, that further personal attacks.

    Your insistence on this raises some questions.

    1) How do you define an expert in a particular field?
    2) Are the experts in particular fields always right?
    3) How likely is it that someone who is engaged in a particular field is biased toward experts in that particular field?
    4) What happens when 2 experts in a particular field disagree
    5) If you were building a highway bridge across the Mississippi river what kind of expert would you want to design it?
    6) Are you suggesting that a layperson’s conclusion of a given situation are always inferior to an expert?
    7) Are you going to answer my earlier series of questions?
    8) Are sweeping generalizations always wrong?

  66. “Then the question comes back to why would someone, then, with NO training, presume to say that their judgment on matters is better than not just ONE individual expert, but the whole class?”

    The answer to your question is that no one has made the above claim. So if your entire premise is flawed, doesn’t it stand to reason that your conclusions are flawed?

  67. paynehollow says:

    Craig…

    your Haiti analogy failed miserably due to your ignorance of the water situation in the NW zone of Haiti. In point of fact, it does not require an expert to find clean drinking water.

    According to water.org,

    “Forty percent of the people in Haiti lack access to clean water…” and

    “The water and sanitation situation in Haiti is among the most dire in the Western hemisphere.”

    http://water.org/country/haiti/

    …So, perhaps you can see how I might assume that clean water IS kinduva big deal in Haiti. As a point of fact, in the real world, you can’t just drink any water and it be safe. Are you aware that water might look clean but contain deadly/health-threatening microbes, germs and heavy metals?

    If you had even a minimal degree of expertise on the topic, you would know this. Do you know what to do to get rid of the dangers in water? Well, I don’t, but someone with some expertise does. THUS, my analogy, “Do you want to get water from just any source or after it’s been certified safe by some degree of expertise?” is sound and your attacks have been shown clearly to be false and misdirected/misinformed.

    Ready to back down from your double and triple down on stupidity and arrogance, yet?

    ~Dan

    • Dan,

      If you had done more than a cursory google search you would have known that in a significant portion of the NW zone of Haiti there is an adequate number of sources of clean drinking water from wells. Now based on your cursory swipe through google I can forgive your ignorance of this fact. Maybe that makes me an expert of clean water in the NW zone of Haiti so you should just assume I know what I’m talking about. Oh and since I do know how to treat questionable water, I guess I know what I’m talking talking about there too. You can keep trying though.

      The name calling is always a good sign that your powerful arguments are working.

      • paynehollow says:

        By all means, keep twisting the arguments. When one’s own arguments are nothing more than false representations and slander, it is a good sign that your arguments are failing.

        ~Dan

        • Got it, name calling is perfectly fine, but heaven forbid I disagree with you. I guess you are in a position to conclude that my training and experience with clean water in the NW zone of Haiti make me less of an expert than your one google search.

        • paynehollow says:

          Pointing out that, factually speaking, you have totally misunderstood and misrepresented my point is not name calling. It’s pointing out the facts.

        • Really, stupid, irrational, delusional and arrogant are words that suggest that you are simply pointing out that I have misunderstood your position?

  68. paynehollow says:

    As to your questions, they are, like prior questions, based on a false understanding of what I have said.

    1) How do you define an expert in a particular field?

    Someone with expertise, training and experience. As opposed to just casual observation. Casual observation is fine and I greatly encourage it, but it does not make you an expert.

    2) Are the experts in particular fields always right?

    No. You can tell that I don’t think that by the way I never said that and by the way, in fact, that I already said as much… (“I may have opinions contrary to professionals, and I may express those opinions…”)

    So, clearly, no, that was not my point and never was. Who would make such an argument? No one that I know of. (Well, except for many fundamentalists, but take that with a grain of salt…)

    3) How likely is it that someone who is engaged in a particular field is biased toward experts in that particular field?

    I have no idea. I would suspect that it would depend upon the person. Want me to take a guess? 23%. That’s how likely, just as a guess.

    pff.

    The point I’m making and what you appear to be missing, given this question, is in defense of all classes of experts vs the casual observers. So, if you’re barking up a “Dan’s biased cuz he knows social workers and mental health professionals…” it’s not only mistaken, it’s missing the point.

    4) What happens when 2 experts in a particular field disagree

    ? They disagree. Why?

    5) If you were building a highway bridge across the Mississippi river what kind of expert would you want to design it?

    A highly qualified and informed expert/series of experts. What sort of question is this?

    I would NOT want a casual observer, say, someone who might say, “Well, I’ve crossed over THOUSANDS of bridges in my lifetime and I see them every day, so I know pretty much what I’m talking about… I just don’t generally trust engineering ‘experts,’ or really believe in the science of engineering…” THAT person is delusional and arrogant, or at the least, irrational as heck.

    6) Are you suggesting that a layperson’s conclusion of a given situation are always inferior to an expert?

    Nope. You can tell by the way I never said that.

    7) Are you going to answer my earlier series of questions?

    Are they based on what I said or some misunderstanding/misinterpretation of what I have said?

    8) Are sweeping generalizations always wrong?

    I would say generally, yes. Nothing is “always” anything. My point has been this:

    If you say, “I don’t generally trust THIS WHOLE field of professionals…” and have NOTHING to base it upon except some minimal level of hearing stories about them, not upon research or anything but one’s feelings, that is irrational and one should be expected to be called out for such a goofy claim, given with no support.

    ~Dan

    • Actually my questions are based on trying to accurately understand what you are trying to say and to try to determine if you have the standing to make the assertions you have made.

      Before I start, you seem to be using the terms “expert” and “professional” interchangeably, could your please choose one?

      1) So, you are some vague undefined training experience and expertise makes one an “expert”. It seems to me that observation is a part of gaining training and expertise, so that prolonged observation just might actually be a form of training. As to your characterization of John’s observations as casual, I don’t see that you have laid any sort of groundwork to demonstrate that your casual observation of what John has written is factual. It seems as though your definition of expert lacks any sort of actual standards or specificity, are you OK with that.

      2) Obviously I couldn’t tell because I asked the question. You are suggesting that Glenn is somehow questioning the worth of experts as a class, while you are defending experts as a class. If, as you are suggesting, experts as a class are to be believed then the quality and accuracy of experts as a class must be established. So, you are now saying that experts as a class are not all right. Given that then Glenn’s assertion that certain experts are not as reliable as others seems more reasonable, no?

      3) So, you are asserting as fact that there is no possible way that you are the tiniest bit biased toward (for example) social workers?

      4) If two experts in a particular field disagree, then how is a helpless untrained layman ever to determine the correct course? So

      A personal example. Someone close to me is dealing with both bi-polar and substance abuse issues. This person is involved with a number of different social workers/counselors etc. Shockingly, all of the “medical” folks (the bi polar side) are suggesting that simply getting the right dose of meds will solve the problem. The “non medical” folks (the addiction side) keep insisting that counseling and meetings will solve the problem. I, as an untrained layman, think that the best option would probably be a 6+ month inpatient program. So, as someone purporting to be an expert in these matters, what’s the solution? I’m convinced that if we keep listening to the experts, while watching multiple severe relapses that someone is going to end up seriously hurt or dead when this person gets behind the wheel. But what do I know, I’m just a casual observer, not a trained expert. Right?

      5) It seems that your answer might be that you’d want an engineer or an architect to design the bridge, am I correct?

      6) Since you seem extremely dismissive of the observations of laypersons and extremely solicitous of the opinions of experts, I asked the question to find out with clarity what you were saying.

      7) No, they are based on me trying to understand exactly what you are trying to say. That’s usually why people ask questions. I will assume that this is a yes you will answer my previous series of questions, and I think you in advance.

      8) a. No one has actually said “I don’t trust the entire field of professionals” and for you to insinuate otherwise is false.
      b. If someone did hold the above opinion, who cares. Why are you the person to force someone to change their opinion, no matter how out of the mainstream you believe it to be.
      c. If you are referring to Glenn’s position, then you must have ignored the fact that he has provided you with support from people who have training and expertise in the field in question (by your definition, experts). No one is saying you have to agree with Glenn’s position, but to suggest that he got there out of thin air or that he has nothing to support it, is one more flat out lie. Now, if you could prove the folks that Glenn references wrong, that’s a whole other issue, but to lie about the fact that Glenn has provide sources that informed his position is incredibly hypocritical of you.

      FYI, given this digression, I decided I should go back and read the comments of Glenn that I had previously ignored, so that I would have some context.

  69. paynehollow says:

    Craig, looking back for questions, I find this…

    The answer to your question is that no one has made the above claim. So if your entire premise is flawed, doesn’t it stand to reason that your conclusions are flawed?

    Well, you’ll have to take that up with John and Glenn. This is what it sounds like they’re saying. I’ve asked for clarification. When one says, “I don’t generally trust social workers…” that sounds like a sweeping generalization based on nothing. When one says, “‘mental health’ is not a science…” that sounds like a sweeping generalization.

    Both sound irrational as hell.

    DO YOU DISAGREE?

    I’m answering your questions, how about some return of the favor?

    You asked…

    can you actually prove that Glenn is “anti professional”? The simple fact that he doesn’t agree with the efficacy of psychology

    He does not believe in the professionalism of a whole field (several fields) of science. He probably also does not “believe in” social work as a field, either. He does not believe in evolutionary science. CLEARLY, in at least these areas, he is anti-intellectualism… he is anti-best research, he is an outlier in these fields, denying our best understandings of science in these areas. Take it up with him.

    You have plenty of energy to debate liberals with whom you disagree – even to the point of misconstruing their actual arguments and making slanderous false charges about them and not backing down with confronted with the facts… why not spend a little bit of your time cleaning your own house.

    “You fool! First remove the log from your own eye!”

    ~Dan

    • Dan
      Unlike you I prefer to deal with people as individuals rather than as members of a group. So that I wouldn’t say well Dan is a liberal and Bob is a liberal, therefore Dan must agree with every position Bob holds. It’s stupid to make a sweeping generalization lumping people who may agree on some things into a sweeping generalization that they agree on everything. So when you misuse scripture implying that what you perceive as Glenn’s failings somehow apply to me it makes me wonder how rational you are about certain things. I don’t speak for Glenn, I don’t always agree with Glenn, but you falsely presuming to tell me what I should do about someone else is pathetic. For years you allowed and encouraged Alan and Geoffy to engage in all sorts of personal attacks and outright lies and did virtually nothing. Now you want me to attack Glenn over something that you believe him to be mistaken. You do your own dirty work. Seriously who cares if Glenn is mistaken about one topic, aren’t we supposed to be gracious and non dogmatic about things we can’t prove.

      Well, embrace grace.

    • TRABUE: DO you really think that a casual observer’s experiences and knowledge outweighs a trained and experienced expert? A whole CLASS of experts?

      Craig: The answer to your question is that no one has made the above claim.

      TRABUE: Well, you’ll have to take that up with John and Glenn. This is what it sounds like they’re saying. I’ve asked for clarification. When one says, “I don’t generally trust social workers…” that sounds like a sweeping generalization based on nothing. When one says, “‘mental health’ is not a science…” that sounds like a sweeping generalization.

      Notice the change in Trabue’s claim in the first statement to what he claims in the second – he changed the charge because he got caught in a straw man question.
      First, sometimes a casual observer’s experience and knowledge CAN outweigh an “expert’s”. Experts aren’t gods.

      I’ve never claimed anything about a “whole CLASS of experts.” I have charged a FIELD of quackery as being unscientific and more useless than helpful, because it is based on humanistic and atheistic worldviews, and among that field even the “experts” argue as to the efficacy. Wow, I agree with “experts” in that field and I’m considered irrational and looney. I have proven the unscientific and anti-Christian nature of the field of psychotherapy – just visit my blog and read the series of articles I wrote on the topic.

      Craig: can you actually prove that Glenn is “anti professional”? The simple fact that he doesn’t agree with the efficacy of psychology

      Trabue: He does not believe in the professionalism of a whole field (several fields) of science. He probably also does not “believe in” social work as a field, either. He does not believe in evolutionary science. CLEARLY, in at least these areas, he is anti-intellectualism… he is anti-best research, he is an outlier in these fields, denying our best understandings of science in these areas. Take it up with him.

      Wow, what a bunch of bloating lies! Let’s take them one at a time:
      He does not believe in the professionalism of a whole field (several fields) of science.
      So, I condemn ONE field which has no science behind it (psychotherapy/clinical psychology) and I’m accused of not believing in “several fields” of science. Of course Trabue gets to determine what is or is not “science.”

      He probably also does not “believe in” social work as a field, either.
      Well, I have to “believe in” it because it exists. DUH. I think social work is a very necessary and viable field. However, anytime it is basing its actions on the unscientific ideology of the psych field, then its efficacy is limited, and it can cause more harm than help.

      He does not believe in evolutionary science
      Let’s see. Thousands of scientists say that evolution is nonsense but if Glenn says it’s nonsense, then Glenn is a crackpot. IF Trabue wasn’t so brainwashed into the evolution religion, he would learn that there is no real science behind evolution – it is nothing but an unproven philosophy.

      CLEARLY, in at least these areas, he is anti-intellectualism
      So, if anyone disagrees with Trabue, that person is “anti-intellectualism” How stupid can he be?

      he is anti-best research
      An assertion with absolutely NO evidence. What he means is, if you disagree with the research HE provides, then you are “anti-best research” His arrogance is beyond the pale.

      he is an outlier in these fields, denying our best understandings of science in these areas

      an “outlier” is anyone who doesn’t agree with Trabue and his far-left liberal fools. As noted, I only agree with thousands of “experts” in the fields Trabue noted, but he can’t accept what the experts in those fields say when THEY don’t agree with him, and therefore said experts are dismissed as “nut jobs” analogous with the Westboro Baptist cult.

      Back at you, Trabue “You fool! First remove the log from your own eye!”

      • Glenn,
        Thanks for saving me from pointing out the hypocrisy of the goal post moving in Dan’s comments. To change from “is” to “sounds like” or “seems to be” is a cute rhetorical trick, but par for the course for Dan.

        Of course, it’s just his opinion, so it doesn’t need to be based in reality.

    • Disagreement is NOT “anti-intellectualism”. It is merely disagreement. Disagreement may be the more intellectual position.

  70. paynehollow says:

    Interesting read…

    http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/wired-success/201407/anti-intellectualism-and-the-dumbing-down-america

    Of course, it’s from Psychology Today, so we know Glenn will write it off point blank, and perhaps others here, as well. Still, interesting read for those willing to read it. Including this quote from Asimov…

    “There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.”

    That, being my point.

    ~Dan

    • Well, TRABUE, being your normal jackass self, have lied again. In fact, I agree with the article. I am tired of seeing the poor products coming out of the public education systems, including state universities. They are dumbed down by being fed nothing but liberal propaganda and self-esteem ideology.

      Your link and comments have absolutely nothing to do with anything discussed on this thread except for the fact that you had to falsely charge me with “anti-intellectualism” so you could bring in this article.

      YOU ARE SUCH A FOOL.

  71. paynehollow says:

    Craig…

    I don’t speak for Glenn, I don’t always agree with Glenn, but you falsely presuming to tell me what I should do about someone else is pathetic.

    Nor do you always agree with me. BUT, you choose to continually attack me and my positions, and misrepresent me for stating just basic obvious observable facts, but give Glenn a pass all the time. One has to wonder why? Is it plain partisan bias? Is it that you partially agree with him in his nuttier comments and behavior? Why? Who knows? By all means, feel free to ignore him.

    What I am telling you, though, is that JUST AS WITH the Westboro Baptist sort of insanity, that Christians and conservatives rightly need to distance themselves from them because they appear to be “in their house…” so, too, you should distance yourselves from all the nuttier fringes of your group, otherwise, it hurts you all collectively.

    Craig…

    For years you allowed and encouraged Alan and Geoffy to engage in all sorts of personal attacks and outright lies and did virtually nothing.

    Demonstrably false. I continually rebuffed their bad behavior, both online and in personal emails. I have deleted more of their messages than I have of any conservative commenters, but I try to never delete, as a general rule. So, what do you want me to beyond asking them not to engage in bad behavior (which I’ve done), chastising them for bad behavior (which I’ve done) and even removing more offensive comments (which I’ve done)? I don’t do bans or generally delete, what more should I do?

    And, if you are not doing the same for your more offensive and nuttier comrades, on what basis do you argue that I’m not doing enough?

    ~Dan

    • Dan,

      Are you seriously suggesting that I can’t determine who I want to dialogue with and who I don’t want to dialogue with and the topics of said dialogue?

      Are you seriously suggesting that it OK for you to arbitrarily broad brush me in with whoever you decide, so therefore I have to defend everything you say?

      If you want to bring up the Phelps nuts, then since you and the entire Phelps clan are Democrats, then you’re just as much on the hook for them as anyone else. Of course it’s incredibly stupid to presume sweeping generalizations about groups of people who you perceive as “others”, but it doesn’t stop you from doing it.

      It’s simple, deal with people as individuals, not as members of a group, it’s easy, it’s respectful, and it’s the right thing to do.

      As far as Alan and Geoffy, What I do know and is there for anyone to see is that they spewed a lot of hateful crap at your blog. You did, when called out on it, occasionally admonish them, so I’ll give you that. But, you let a lot of nasty stuff go too.

      As to what you did behind closed doors so to speak, no one but you knows the truth of that. I do recall that I told you once that when I had disagreements with folks who I tended to agree with I did it via e-mail and not publicly. At that point, my explanation didn’t seem to convince you, but hey, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and accept your response at face value.

  72. paynehollow says:

    He that walketh with wise men shall be wise: but a companion of fools shall be destroyed.

    ~Proverbs 13:20

  73. paynehollow says:

    God bless you, Glenn.

  74. paynehollow says:

    John…

    will we be getting back to the general perception of domestic violence being perpetrated principally by men as being false

    1. We are all agreed that men abusing women is bad.

    2. We are all agreed that women abusing men is bad.

    3. No one (no one. NO ONE. Not any person in the world that I have heard of ever.) is saying that women abusing men does not exist.

    4. There is no conspiracy to cover up that sometimes women abuse men. If someone is suggesting that and with zero evidence, they are irrational.

    5. The prevalence of women abusing men is in debate, hopefully we can agree to that. Some research says it may be about equal in occurrence between men and women. Others say that it’s a slightly larger problem with men, in terms of cases of abuse. These are just the facts.

    6. If anyone chooses ONE set of data and says, “See? It’s not that bad a problem! Women do it equally as often!” it makes them sound as if they are downplaying the problem, and cherry picking data that suits their ends. If one is interested in the facts, we can note that research offers different results. Factually speaking.

    7. The fact is, when it comes to severe abuse, severe damage being done, death happening as a result of abuse… it is statistically a much larger problem with men seriously harming the women in their lives. In this sense, male-on-female abuse is a much graver, more serious problem. Factually speaking.

    Them’s the facts. Hopefully, we can all agree on the facts (well, Number 6 is more a matter of opinion, but the rest are facts).

    ~Dan

    • Re: #4. If you took just a moment to read any of the links offered by Craig or myself (one of Craig’s is actually to the one I offered), it would be difficult to suggest there is an organized conspiracy. Yet, there is the downplaying of the data that suggests the gap is no where near as large as most people would believe.

      #5. The trend indicates a narrowing of the gap. Thus, the prevalence of women abusing men should not be in debate at all. This is what the facts are saying.

      #6. No one is suggesting either is “not that bad a problem”. It doesn’t even sound as if posts like this are downplaying anything. This issue is with regards to the downplaying of female perpetration of violence against men. Worse, however, is that you are not you are not seeing cherry picking from this side, while you are totally ignoring data from your side.

      #7. This post, nor anyone who has shown honor in reading and understanding it, does not pretend or presume anything with regards to male on female violence.

      Those are facts.

  75. The time article may be a sign that the problem addressed in the post is changing.

  76. paynehollow says:

    More stats, from the American Bar Association…

    * In a 1995-1996 study conducted in the 50 States and the District of Columbia, nearly 25% of women and 7.6% of men were raped and/or physically assaulted by a current or former spouse

    * Approximately 1.3 million women and 835,000 men are physically assaulted by an intimate partner annually in the United States.

    * Intimate partner violence made up 20% of all nonfatal violent crime experienced by women in 2001.

    * Intimate partners committed 3% of the nonfatal violence against men.

    * In 2000, 1,247 women and 440 men were killed by an intimate partner. In recent years, an intimate partner killed approximately 33% of female murder victims and 4% of male murder victims.

    * 84% of spouse abuse victims were females, and 86% of victims of dating partner abuse at were female.

    * Males were 83% of spouse murderers and 75% of dating partner murderers

    * 50% of offenders in state prison for spousal abuse had killed their victims. Wives were more likely than husbands to be killed by their spouses.

    * Domestic violence occurs within same-sex relationships as it does in heterosexual relationships.

    http://www.americanbar.org/groups/domestic_violence/resources/statistics.html

  77. paynehollow says:

    You’re right. Men under-report. It’s probably 4 men getting abused for every one woman who gets abused and men probably get killed at 100,000 times the rate of women.

    Let’s just make up numbers, why don’t we?

    Yes, men AND women oftentimes don’t report abuse. Bring me some hard data that gives us an exact number and we can talk. In the meantime, it sure seems like you’re intent on pushing this “THEY are hiding male abuse” conspiracy nuttiness.

    Of course you are.

    ~Dan

  78. Good …. time to get back to your post on Evidence for Jesus, John.

    • We’re going to play by the same rules. I’ll post mine when you post your evidence for evolution that is only affirmed by YECs

      • Evidence for evolution will never be accepted by anyone who has a presuppositional outlook based on a religious worldview.
        This is the power of indoctrination. If you doubt my words, then discuss it with a Christian deconvert.

        If you are simply going to behave churlish then you are only confirming the reality of indoctrination.

        If you have evidence that the biblical character Jesus of Nazareth is the man god you genuflect to then why not show it?
        Surely you are not ashamed of your own evidence?

        • I’ve got evidence. But you said the only evidence for Jesus being God that is acceptable to you, must also be accepted by secular sources. Have you ever thought about that? That only sources who believe it isn’t true must affirm it as true? It’s an impossible parameter. It’s not honest, and you know it.

          • Of course it is honest!
            Your evidence is valid for you because you already believe!
            This is what indoctrination is all about.

            • Wrong. The evidence is valid, therefore I believe. Not the other way around.

              • Wrong – the evidence is NOT valid. It is hearsay at best, gross fiction/ lies at worst.
                You believe based on indoctrination or some inner desire to find fulfillment via a crutch.

              • Again, even if it were true that I only believe as a crutch, it doesn’t mean the belief is wrong. Again, that’s called the genetic fallacy.

                Also, if it were hearsay, it doesn’t make it false either.

              • Of course it doesn’t mean the belief is wrong. I never said it did. I was highlighting the reason why people believe.
                Now, the reason why people disbelieve is because they have discovered the belief is wrong, based on the erroneous evidence for the claims.
                In the same way we know the earth isn’t flat and the entire planet was not flooded as per Noah.

                No, hearsay doesn’t make it false. But when other evidence is put alongside this hearsay it compounds the falseness of the claims.

                You have nothing, John. Nothing but faith.
                The honest thing to do is acknowledge this.
                Even you man god reckoned this was far superior, did he not?

              • Well, you just acknowledged that two of your jabs at believers and their belief are irrelevant. If you know that, why offer it?

    • This isn’t directed at anyone in particular. But only an idiot who hasn’t thought it through would realize that IF a secular source affirmed evidence that Jesus was God, then they wouldn’t be secular anymore if the source was intellectually honest.

      • Exactly! At last.

        The first sensible thing you have written! Well done. You are beginning to think a little about the problem. I am truly impressed.

        And this is why faith is the key – because there is NO EVIDENCE that will confirm that the biblical character Jesus of Nazareth is a god. And I would be the first in church on Sunday if there were.
        Understand?

        • No, it’s that when people are convinced by the evidence they convert, thus they aren’t secular anymore. Therefore secular corroberators don’t exist by definition. Either you haven’t thought this through and you’re not good at thinking. Or you do know this and are dishonest. Which is it?

          • Wrong, JOhn. So wrong.
            The reason why indoctrination is the key can be aptly demonstrated by listening to a deconvert.
            Their road OUT of religion is the direct opposite of their road into it.

            If it is a result of childhood indoctrination then when the adult begins to apply critical thought the faith takes a back seat and eventually the cycle of dependence is broken.
            At the opposite side of the scale, the road in for adults usually comes because of some sort of trauma in their life.
            So often, sex, drugs, etc feature in the reason why they turned to religion as a crutch to help them.

            There are myriad adult bloggers who will admit to some sort of breakdown in this regard.

            If you apply the same criteria to your faith as to every other god based belief then why are you not a Muslim or a Hindu?

            • I’ve never met a decongestant who wasn’t in a church that squashed tough questioning. You presume that all churches, all belief, and all things religious is the same. It isnt..

              And not all religions do have the same evidence. They don’t all stand up and I’ve written about that already. I’ve explained why I’m not a…

            • But none of your “crutch” excuses work either. It doesn’t matter why someone believes something, what matters is whether it’s true. If I believed 2 and 2 is 4 because my dog wears a blue collar, it would still be true. This is a formal logical fallacy, the genetic fallacy. Study up son.

              • And no you wish to argue semantics?
                Step up to the plate and offer the evidence, John.
                If it is good enough it will pass muster.

              • That’s the thing. You’ve already implicitly admitted you won’t accept anything that isn’t confirmed by an atheist. You want an atheist to say Jesus is God. So again, either you haven’t thought it through and you’re not good at thinking. Or you k ow you’ve asked for a square circle and are dishonest. I’ll let you choose which you are.

              • Wrong. Muslims don’t believe in your man god clams and they are most definitely NOT atheist.

                All you have to do is provide evidence.
                And the last thing I am is dishonest, of that I can assure.
                you.
                If you need to bend the evidence you have to fit into your presuppositional worldview then it doesn’t say much for your own integrity
                Perhaps you should look there first before casting aspersions?
                Let’s see what you’ve got John.
                At least show me what convinced you?

              • Why do you keep saying ‘my presuppositional worldview’?

                And did you just seriously suggest that there exists a Muslim who believes there’s good evidence that Jesus is God? Ok, so it is the first option: you didn’t think this through.

              • Why do you keep saying ‘my presuppositional worldview’?

                Because you believe in the veracity of your man god claim firstand base everything on this .

                And did you just seriously suggest that there exists a Muslim who believes there’s good evidence that Jesus is God?

                Tsk, tsk. Shakes head .
                Read the comment again, Johnny … carefully.
                Wrong. Muslims don’t believe in your man god clams …
                I have highlighted the relevant word for you ..see?

              • I read the comment. You suggested using a muslim source who doesn’t believe Jesus is God to affirm evidence that Jesus is God. You’re just brilliant aren’t you.

              • Are you on drugs?
                I used the Muslim example to demonstrate the fallacious nature of your assertion that I would only accept atheist evidence re: any god claim for Jesus of Nazareth.
                I could have used Jews also. Or any other religion besides Christianity and not a single one considers Jesus of Nazareth to be a god and none of them are atheist either. Stop behaving like a chump.

                Now, stop being childish and present some evidence.

              • Hey genius. If a Muslim believed the evidence that Jesus was God was true, he wouldn’t be a Muslim. If a Jew believed the evidence for Jesus being God is true they wouldn’t be a Jew.

                Are you really this bad at thinking?

              • But they do not believe Jesus if Nazareth is a god and they are NOT atheist are they John?
                Now catch a bloody wake-up for your god’s sake!
                I can’t type this in crayon you know?

                Right …so to the evidence, John. Let’s see some.
                Present what convinced you in a post.
                You must have some, surely?

              • You should probably make your way back to the village.

              • Hmm. So, no humility and struggles to understand basic English?
                *
                Come on John.
                Stop being so damn coy. This isn’t a first date.
                I am a no virgin in matters theological. You can drop the pretense and show me.
                It’s probably nothing I haven’t seen before, but maybe yours’ is presented differently, yes?

                Maybe we can entice marshalart and the gang to pop over and offer their six penny worth?

              • Ark, you’re in the wrong thread.

              • Sheesh! Don’t I know it, for your god’s sake!
                I was hoping you had had enough of the violence thing and was trying to get you to open a new thread on Evidence for Jesus.
                Come on, John, the football is about to start and it is a game I don’t want to miss.
                Evidence , John. Evidence.

              • You don’t get to derail a thread.

        • There is no evidence that confirms the atheist point of view. This is what atheists and humanists refuse to accept. Their religious devotion to science insists that data science provides can only be properly interpreted by scientists who are predisposed to the secular humanist point of view. The faithful can’t hold a candle to the fervent religious-like belief of the secular humanist atheist based only on their preferred conclusions. Such a fool needs not concrete unassailable proof, but demands that from the faithful. Hard to overcome such one-sided terms, and that’s just how the atheist, particularly those as dishonest as Arkie, like it.

  79. Now, let’s see some of the evidence that convinced you, okay, and afterwards we can discuss its merits?

  80. paynehollow says:

    John…

    By discuss it’s merits you mean, do people who don’t believe it’s true believe it’s true.

    Not to further contribute to this off topic bounce, but, John, didn’t you say that you were an unbeliever and you read info/data/something that convinced you (ie, a person who does not believe it’s true) that it’s true? Why not pass that on? If it worked for you, why not others?

    Or were you not convinced by evidence so much as a pascals wager sort of threat?

    Just sayin,’ why NOT provide the info?

    ~Dan

  81. paynehollow says:

    What was it, John, that changed you from an atheist to a believer? It would be interesting to hear.

  82. paynehollow says:

    I was raised in a Christian household (conservative) and so believing in God comes naturally for me. I had to be unconvinced of some beliefs I held (a “literal” bible in the sense the conservatives mean, a literal creation, a rulebook view of the Bible, etc) but believing in the Mystery of the Unknowable, making room for believing in a God that I can’t prove, believing in the wisdom of Jesus’ words as found in the Bible, I accept these in faith.

    I find the “where did it all come from?” and “how about the apparent design in nature and humanity?” questions to be best answered by a creator God.

    I find the “How do we best live here on earth?” sorts of questions best answered in Jesus’ teachings as evidenced in every day life, as I understand it.

    So, I would not say it is a blind faith at all simply because I was raised that way – not at all – but a faith built upon what makes rational sense to me.

    ~Dan

Any Thoughts?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: