Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 01-04-2020, 12:56 AM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 16,435

Biden, Wife-Beating and "Rule of Thumb"


Biden said the following at an event:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Biden
Any of you know what the phrase “Rule of thumb” means? Rule of thumb means…in English common law, meaning not the codified law like we pass in a parliament or pass in a Congress. Common law means adjustment of the courts’ decisions from previous decisions, as it matures going down the road. In the late 1300s, in England, so many wives were being beaten to death by their husbands that the court of common law said — because women were considered to be a chattel, just like the horse or the cows or the animals in the field. For real. And a man was able to “chastize” his wife. But so many were being beaten to death that the court ruled, in the late 1300s, that no man could beat his wife with a rod bigger than the circumference of his thumb. We have a cultural problem. A cultural problem.
To me, this is outrageous for a public figure. A ten second google search would show that the Rule of Thumb was never, ever, ever used in this manner and his statement is demonstrably false.

Further, the law did not treat women as the equivalent of cattle or other chattel property. Certainly steps needs to be taken for full equality, but women were never "considered to be chattel" under English law.

Also, I have serious reservations that husbands beating their wives to death was ever a common thing in 14th Century England.

Does anyone want to try to make any sense of or defend these remarks?
  #2  
Old 01-04-2020, 01:04 AM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 16,435
Sorry, link:

https://www.snopes.com/news/2020/01/...video-culture/

And Snopes, that unbiased fact checker, let him off the hook with this one sentence:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Link
He provided several examples: the English common law origins of the phrase “rule of thumb” (Biden there repeated what is likely an etymological myth)
That's not "likely" an "etymological myth." It is certainly one and has been debunked over and over again including by Snopes itself.
  #3  
Old 01-04-2020, 01:07 AM
hajario's Avatar
hajario is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Santa Barbara, California
Posts: 16,321
What a jackass.
  #4  
Old 01-04-2020, 02:32 AM
Aspidistra is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 6,015
It's an idiotic and historically illiterate statement. No argument here.

I'm sure many thirteenth century men did get away with beating their wives to death, just as I'm sure a lot got away with beating their children, servants and neighbors to death. I'm not aware of it ever being codified into law, and of course the rule of thumb thing is a well-known piece of bullshit.

For "legal right to kill family members", you want Ancient Rome
  #5  
Old 01-04-2020, 03:01 AM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 16,435
You mean got away with as in the crime was not found out? I agree with that. But if you mean got away with in the sense that if it was discovered and reported that a judge might say, "Well, that was his wife so he is privileged to kill her"? If the latter, then I very much disagree.

Even at the time of Blackstone, he stated that there was an "ancient law" that permitted a man to discipline his wife much like he could (and still today can) discipline a child, but Blackstone noted that today (in his time) such a privilege was no longer applicable.

I would be interested in seeing just a single case where a man was acquitted or not prosecuted because of some privilege to beat his wife so severely even if it caused her death. I have no reason to think that he wouldn't be prosecuted with murder.

And that puts aside Biden's assertion that is was so very common that judges had to get together and invent a rule of only modest beatings to prevent "so many wives ... being beaten to death by their husbands."

Domestic violence is a serious concern, but it is utterly irresponsible to suggest that it has been part of our culture for hundreds of years. The concern is not that polite society allowed it, indeed that was never the mark of a good or proper husband, but that society for years had a "well it can't be that bad or else she would leave him" attitude that vastly oversimplified the problem and did not get to the root of the problem.

It is very dangerous, especially given that he should know better, as it militarizes groups against society on a falsehood.
  #6  
Old 01-04-2020, 03:26 AM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 40,540
Wait, what's the complaint here? That Biden repeated a myth as fact that, for most of his life, had been widely accepted as fact? That he wasn't up to date on the debunking of that myth?

Or that it would somehow make a difference in how a Biden Presidency handled issues relating to violence against and abuse of women?

If the former - well, I'm not exactly one of Biden's biggest defenders on this board (quite the opposite!), but oh dearle me. :fans self, clutches pearls: Can we criticize Biden over something that actually matters? Plenty of that to go around.

If the latter, then maybe you're on better ground, but you gotta make the connection for me. I'm not seeing it.

FWIW, the gripe against Snopes in post #2 is bullshit. The purpose of the cited Snopes post was to debunk something entirely different - the edited tape that purportedly showed that Biden was a white nationalist. So yes, it mentioned only in passing the mythical nature of "rule of thumb" and left it at that, because it wasn't the focus of the piece, not to "let him off the hook." Seriously, dude.
  #7  
Old 01-04-2020, 03:42 AM
Unreconstructed Man is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 546
My thoughts:

1). Biden was obviously wrong about the rule of thumb. It was a dumb thing to say and he shouldn’t have said it.

2). It’s not a big deal. Especially since Trump says dumber stuff every day.

3). It’s not “outrageous”, and I think it’s ridiculous that the OP finds it so.

4). It’s a distraction from his repugnant “Learn to code” comment from the other day. That really was outrageous. It was a heartless, stupid, DNC gig economy talking point. Middle aged miners don't want to ‘learn to code’, and even if they did no employer is going to hire them over a 20 year old with the same skills. Either Joe doesn’t know that, or he does know it but doesn’t care. Both are unforgivable and that’s what we should be talking about.
  #8  
Old 01-04-2020, 04:09 AM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 16,435
It is not simply the "Rule of Thumb" misquote. It is bad enough that he cannot check a claim that has been debunked for twenty-five years.

My problem is his whole spiel. That our culture allowed untold amounts of spousal murder and the response of judges was to introduce a rule that you could only beat your wife a little but not a lot with the implication that this heritage has stayed with us today and why fighting domestic abuse is so hard.

That's simply an absolute lie. It has not been acceptable in our society for at least 300 years even to lay a hand on your wife. No decent person beats their wife.

The problem is that for too many years people did not understand the dynamic of abuse and underestimated the ability of an abused woman to leave a relationship. Let's fix the problem starting with that understanding, not with the idea that men have to mentally fight every day to keep from murdering women.

I don't agree with the talking point that Dems hate America, but this is fodder. It is a mainstream presidential candidate simply lying in an attempt to show how utterly evil our culture is.

It is not about being stupid or idiotic. It is actively misleading and dangerous.

I agree that the "learn to code" was insulting, but at least it wasn't prefaced with a wholly false narrative. When/if Trump says something similar, I'll post in that thread.
  #9  
Old 01-04-2020, 05:45 AM
Aspidistra is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 6,015
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
You mean got away with as in the crime was not found out? I agree with that. But if you mean got away with in the sense that if it was discovered and reported that a judge might say, "Well, that was his wife so he is privileged to kill her"? If the latter, then I very much disagree.
No, I mean as in people getting mad and beating other people up was a normal part of life, sometimes these people died, and sometimes that person might be your wife, child, neighbor, or whoever. There wasn't even a distinct crime of murder as we'd understand it until the twelfth century, and there weren't any police - bringing a felon to justice was the job of the neighbors. The usual penalty for a lot of what we'd call murder was a fine (to the victim's kin) and 'I was just trying to beat them up, not kill them' was a totally legally acceptable argument (and, again - fine paid to the kin. If YOU were the kin, then I guess no penalty)

'Yes you could get away with killing your wife' was true in the sense of 'yes, you could get away in general with killing people a lot more easily than is easy to imagine for a modern person'
  #10  
Old 01-04-2020, 06:04 AM
AK84 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 16,710
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aspidistra View Post
There wasn't even a distinct crime of murder as we'd understand it until the twelfth century.'
Horseshit. Murder is in the Code of Hummurabi. It was around before the 12th century and also before the 12th Century BC.

Murder, theft and rape are unlawful in pretty much every organized society going on since humans became settled folks.
  #11  
Old 01-04-2020, 06:54 AM
Aspidistra is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 6,015
The English legal code before Henry II didn't distinguish between murder=intentional killing and manslaughter=unintentional. It distinguished between slaying openly and slaying covertly, and the first one was a fining offence, not a hanging offence. So you could walk up to your enemy, stab him in the guts, pay compensation to his family, and be square. If you put arsenic in his beer though, then you were in trouble. This is before the period that the OP quote is trying to talk about, but not much before.

Cite
__________________
Science created the modern world. Politics is doing its best to destroy it.
  #12  
Old 01-04-2020, 09:28 AM
Wesley Clark is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 23,118
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
That's simply an absolute lie. It has not been acceptable in our society for at least 300 years even to lay a hand on your wife. No decent person beats their wife.

.
Are you sure? My understanding is domestic violence didn't even become criminalized until second wave feminism and the 1960s.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion
  #13  
Old 01-04-2020, 09:45 AM
RitterSport's Avatar
RitterSport is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,756
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
...

The problem is that for too many years people did not understand the dynamic of abuse and underestimated the ability of an abused woman to leave a relationship. Let's fix the problem starting with that understanding, not with the idea that men have to mentally fight every day to keep from murdering women. ....
Did you mean to say that people overestimated the ability of an abused woman to leave a relationship? I mean, it can be really difficult to for an abused woman to leave a relationship, right? It's a great way to get herself killed.

Anyway, this article says that, prior to 1970 in the US, domestic violence (short of murder, I'm sure) was treated pretty hands-off by the police:

https://muse.jhu.edu/article/449295

Quote:
Before the 1970s, judges and police officers still saw wife beating as a trivial offense—policemen would tell husbands to calm down and wives to stop annoying them, and cases rarely came to court. Popular culture depicted wife beating as a joke, and psychiatrists saw it as a pathology of the underclass or of individual women. In general, the problem was denied or explained away.
This seems to be in contrast with the main thrust of your complaint with Biden. He was factually wrong about the rule of thumb thing, but he's right that society mostly didn't take spousal abuse seriously until the '70s. Can we agree that this was the main point of his historically dubious tale?
  #14  
Old 01-04-2020, 09:55 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 36,813
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
That our culture allowed untold amounts of spousal murder and the response of judges was to introduce a rule that you could only beat your wife a little but not a lot with the implication that this heritage has stayed with us today and why fighting domestic abuse is so hard.

That's simply an absolute lie. It has not been acceptable in our society for at least 300 years even to lay a hand on your wife.
I don't buy this uncited claim. In my reading, abuse of women has been largely tolerated (and even sometimes encouraged!) for most of history up into recent times.
  #15  
Old 01-04-2020, 09:58 AM
Andy L is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 7,114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
Are you sure? My understanding is domestic violence didn't even become criminalized until second wave feminism and the 1960s.
In 1964, the Dick Van Dyke show featured an episode (The Lady and the Tiger and the Lawyer) in which Dick sets up Sally with a bachelor neighbor, which Laura sets up that same neighbor with an unmarried cousin of hers. The bachelor dates both women, the dates apparently go well, but he never calls them back. Why? He beats up people he loves (he feels terrible about it!) so his therapist advises him to never date a woman more than once. Obviously not definitely evidence, but an indication of what societal norms were.
  #16  
Old 01-04-2020, 10:36 AM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 40,540
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
It is not simply the "Rule of Thumb" misquote. It is bad enough that he cannot check a claim that has been debunked for twenty-five years.

My problem is his whole spiel. That our culture allowed untold amounts of spousal murder and the response of judges was to introduce a rule that you could only beat your wife a little but not a lot with the implication that this heritage has stayed with us today and why fighting domestic abuse is so hard.

That's simply an absolute lie. It has not been acceptable in our society for at least 300 years even to lay a hand on your wife. No decent person beats their wife.

The problem is that for too many years people did not understand the dynamic of abuse and underestimated the ability of an abused woman to leave a relationship. Let's fix the problem starting with that understanding, not with the idea that men have to mentally fight every day to keep from murdering women.

I don't agree with the talking point that Dems hate America, but this is fodder. It is a mainstream presidential candidate simply lying in an attempt to show how utterly evil our culture is.

It is not about being stupid or idiotic. It is actively misleading and dangerous.
What a pile of bullcrap. Yes, the 'rule of thumb' bit is false, but the underlying point - that our society has a very long history of condoning spousal abuse - is absofuckinglutely true. There's nothing counterproductive about making that point, and the use of the 'rule of thumb' myth is a minor cavil.

OTOH, "It has not been acceptable in our society for at least 300 years even to lay a hand on your wife" is also a myth, and a pernicious one.

One example: if you're old enough to remember the reaction to the Rolling Stones' "Black and Blue" billboard in 1976, you may also remember that a lot of people, obviously including record company execs, were caught off guard by women's anger at the billboard. They didn't see what was wrong with selling an album by portraying a woman who'd been tied up and beaten as sexy.

If it had been unacceptable in our society in 1976 and the years leading up to it for a man to lay a hand on his wife, this ad would never have been made in the first place, and if it had, the outrage would have come from all quarters. But that was not how it was.
  #17  
Old 01-04-2020, 10:40 AM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 27,680
He’s clearly wrong, but it isn’t like he’s suggesting that other people can grab women by the pussy.
  #18  
Old 01-04-2020, 10:50 AM
BobLibDem is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Home 07 NCAA HockeyChamps
Posts: 22,051
You can't focus on his failure to research an urban legend. The point I believe he was trying to make is that abuse of women is a long standing cultural problem. I think that part is sound. But instead of talking about the larger issue, now it's "hee hee hee, we gotcha!" attack on Biden. Oh yes, by all means rake him over the coals for repeating a myth and use that to put him at the same level as a serial adulterer and confessed sexual predator.
  #19  
Old 01-04-2020, 10:59 AM
kaylasdad99 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 32,801
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
That's simply an absolute lie. It has not been acceptable in our society for at least 300 years even to lay a hand on your wife.
You’re kidding, right?

It wasn’t until 1977 that Oregon passed the first law in the country declaring that it was even possible for a husband to RAPE his cohabitating wife. It took until 1993 before all fifty states had such laws on the books.
  #20  
Old 01-04-2020, 11:03 AM
Thudlow Boink's Avatar
Thudlow Boink is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Lincoln, IL
Posts: 28,365
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unreconstructed Man View Post
2). It’s not a big deal. Especially since Trump says dumber stuff every day.
Is it a symptom of a big deal? I don't want a President who accepts, passes along, and acts on everything he hears or thinks he knows without checking up on it to see if it's really true,
  #21  
Old 01-04-2020, 11:18 AM
Jophiel's Avatar
Jophiel is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Chicago suburbia
Posts: 19,771
Without the full context of how he came to (mis)attribute the phrase "Rule of Thumb", I have a hard time understanding why this is supposed to upset me beyond "Biden got a widely repeated factoid wrong".

What exactly is anyone supposed to be defending?
  #22  
Old 01-04-2020, 11:23 AM
dropzone's Avatar
dropzone is online now
Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Bedlam
Posts: 30,418
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaylasdad99 View Post
C'mon, who you gonna believe, Wikipedia or UltraVires, a genuine lawyer?
  #23  
Old 01-04-2020, 11:30 AM
Andy L is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 7,114
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaylasdad99 View Post
Three or four years ago a well-known lawyer was apparently unaware of the current laws on marital rape.
  #24  
Old 01-04-2020, 11:39 AM
Chingon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: the hypersphere
Posts: 869
Is the op suggesting that domestic violence is a modern phenomenon?
  #25  
Old 01-04-2020, 11:50 AM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 4,587
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
That's simply an absolute lie. It has not been acceptable in our society for at least 300 years even to lay a hand on your wife.
Ahistorical bullshit.

I Love Lucy - Lucy's Spankings
  #26  
Old 01-04-2020, 12:26 PM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 4,587
UltraVires, this was your your opinion of pinning a woman down and placing a hand over her mouth to stifle cries to the point where the woman feared for her life due to smothering.

Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Right. In 1982, that was called "trying to get laid." In 2018 it is sexual assault. I'm not endorsing it, but in the interests of having an open conversation on a message board, let's not just attack people and debate the merits.
It is absolutely bonkers that you are now suggesting that the past was not more dangerous for women to be on the receiving end of violence at the hands of men.
  #27  
Old 01-04-2020, 12:54 PM
dropzone's Avatar
dropzone is online now
Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Bedlam
Posts: 30,418
I never said he was a GOOD lawyer.

https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...d.php?t=862652
  #28  
Old 01-04-2020, 01:48 PM
margin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,611
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
It is not simply the "Rule of Thumb" misquote. It is bad enough that he cannot check a claim that has been debunked for twenty-five years.

My problem is his whole spiel. That our culture allowed untold amounts of spousal murder and the response of judges was to introduce a rule that you could only beat your wife a little but not a lot with the implication that this heritage has stayed with us today and why fighting domestic abuse is so hard.

That's simply an absolute lie. It has not been acceptable in our society for at least 300 years even to lay a hand on your wife. No decent person beats their wife.
Seriously, do you actually believe this?

The judge sympathized with the man and said, "I seriously wonder how many men married four, five years, who would have had the strength to walk away without administering a little corporal punishment...."

A battered woman in this country has an almost 50/50 chance of summoning another abuser to her door if she calls the police for help. The police skew very heavily to white, male, conservative.

Wife beating and rape have a lot of similarities and rape is often part of domestic violence.

Last edited by margin; 01-04-2020 at 01:49 PM.
  #29  
Old 01-04-2020, 01:57 PM
margin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,611
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
I don't buy this uncited claim. In my reading, abuse of women has been largely tolerated (and even sometimes encouraged!) for most of history up into recent times.

Yeah, it used to be called, "What did you do to piss him off?" I always recommend Next Time She'll Be Dead, by Ann Jones; Why Does He Do That? by Lundy Bancroft----a guy who used to work with wife beaters and has no time for excuses; Women Who Kill, also by Ann Jones, which details the tropes that still influence people today; and, well, I have lists.

It's very frustrating when people bring up some old trope like this and they don't know or care that it's three or four hundred years old.
  #30  
Old 01-04-2020, 02:03 PM
Jonathan Chance is online now
Domo Arigato Mister Moderato
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: On the run with Kilroy
Posts: 23,396

The Moderator Speaks


Quote:
Originally Posted by dropzone View Post
That’ll earn you a warning drop. Please don’t insult other posters.
  #31  
Old 01-04-2020, 02:08 PM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 16,564
I don't think the actual gripe here is whether domestic violence is OK or not (it's not okay,) but rather that Biden is promoting a clearly debunked falsehood. And Snopes also went easy on him.


It's akin to someone telling an audience that the human brain is an amazing organ (it is indeed,) but then citing the false "we only use 10% of our brains" myth in his speech. Just tell the truth and truth alone.
  #32  
Old 01-04-2020, 02:13 PM
margin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,611
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Sorry, link:

https://www.snopes.com/news/2020/01/...video-culture/

And Snopes, that unbiased fact checker, let him off the hook with this one sentence:



That's not "likely" an "etymological myth." It is certainly one and has been debunked over and over again including by Snopes itself.

"A woman, a dog, and a walnut tree: the mire you beat, the better they be."

That's an English and Welsh proverb that I've seen quoted in regard to King John's reign in England.

In Fulgham v.Alabama, 1871, the judge refers to the "ancient privilege" of beating wives "with a stick", "choke her" and other things, which are actually rather mild if you look at cases like Joel Steinberg or Tracey Thurman, whose husband attacked her in front of police----who did nothing----and after she was on a stretcher in an ambulance. Only when the paramedics complain did the cops bestirr themselves.
  #33  
Old 01-04-2020, 02:34 PM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 4,587
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
I don't think the actual gripe here is whether domestic violence is OK or not (it's not okay,) but rather that Biden is promoting a clearly debunked falsehood.
I think the OP knows what his own gripe is better than you, and he disagrees. It's not just that Biden said something stupid, it's dangerous. His support for that 'danger' is that domestic violence hasn't been a problem for 300 years. It's that ahistorical bullshit that is getting pushback. No one is supporting Biden spreading debunked myths.

Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
It is very dangerous, especially given that he should know better, as it militarizes groups against society on a falsehood.
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
It is not about being stupid or idiotic. It is actively misleading and dangerous.
  #34  
Old 01-04-2020, 02:37 PM
Jophiel's Avatar
Jophiel is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Chicago suburbia
Posts: 19,771
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
It's not just that Biden said something stupid, it's dangerous. His support for that 'danger' is that domestic violence hasn't been a problem for 300 years.
Is there greater context? Because I don't get that from the quote in the OP at all.
  #35  
Old 01-04-2020, 02:40 PM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 4,587
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jophiel View Post
Is there greater context? Because I don't get that from the quote in the OP at all.
There is. His other posts in this thread. Which I quoted and linked to.
  #36  
Old 01-04-2020, 02:47 PM
Jophiel's Avatar
Jophiel is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Chicago suburbia
Posts: 19,771
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
There is. His other posts in this thread. Which I quoted and linked to.
My mistake. I misread your post as "It's not just that Biden said something stupid, it's dangerous. [Biden's] support for that 'danger' is that domestic violence hasn't been a problem for 300 years."

That's on me; you were clear and I was just distracted or something.
  #37  
Old 01-04-2020, 02:55 PM
dropzone's Avatar
dropzone is online now
Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Bedlam
Posts: 30,418
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan Chance View Post
That’ll earn you a warning drop. Please don’t insult other posters.
it's a fair cop. I was going to delete it but it was too late to edit.

Sorry for being a jerk, UltraVires.
  #38  
Old 01-04-2020, 03:34 PM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 40,557
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Biden
This is just more of the same.

He was just getting us all prepared for the increase in domestic abuse that happens on Super Bowl Sunday.

Regards,
Shodan
  #39  
Old 01-04-2020, 03:43 PM
margin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,611
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
This is just more of the same.

He was just getting us all prepared for the increase in domestic abuse that happens on Super Bowl Sunday.

Regards,
Shodan
Fox News? No.
  #40  
Old 01-04-2020, 04:01 PM
Try2B Comprehensive's Avatar
Try2B Comprehensive is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 6,723
Quote:
Originally Posted by AK84 View Post
Horseshit. Murder is in the Code of Hummurabi. It was around before the 12th century and also before the 12th Century BC.

Murder, theft and rape are unlawful in pretty much every organized society going on since humans became settled folks.
https://narratively.com/when-metoo-c...-ancient-rome/

I guess Hammurabi didn't have jurisdiction in ancient Rome, where one's lawyer wouldn't even bother to deny a rape if it was perpetrated against someone of low station.

I realize that has little to do with Biden or 13th century England, I am just feeling nitpicky. Just because someone inscribed some rules of conduct into clay centuries ago does not mean violence has not historically been a major threat. Hell, less than 20 years ago my own family thought it was ok to assault ME for no reason whatsoever. I guess my gripe is that if you are not a woman or gay, you are basically on your own if your number comes up on the Violence Wheel of Fortune.

Which still has little to do with Biden or 13th century England. I guess I'd say that even if Biden's anecdote is false, the idea that one could get away with all kinds of things long ago rings true to me. I would argue that little has changed. OP, have you ever been a non-religious victim in a Bible-beater environment and witnessed first hand the absolute zero support you get?

Last edited by Try2B Comprehensive; 01-04-2020 at 04:01 PM.
  #41  
Old 01-04-2020, 04:14 PM
Andy L is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 7,114
The Code of Hammurabi https://avalon.law.yale.edu/ancient/hamframe.asp

Here are the sections referring to people dying (unless I've missed some)


153. If the wife of one man on account of another man has their mates (her husband and the other man's wife) murdered, both of them shall be impaled.

206. If during a quarrel one man strike another and wound him, then he shall swear, "I did not injure him wittingly," and pay the physicians.

207. If the man die of his wound, he shall swear similarly, and if he (the deceased) was a free-born man, he shall pay half a mina in money.

208. If he was a freed man, he shall pay one-third of a mina.

209. If a man strike a free-born woman so that she lose her unborn child, he shall pay ten shekels for her loss.

210. If the woman die, his daughter shall be put to death.

211. If a woman of the free class lose her child by a blow, he shall pay five shekels in money.

212. If this woman die, he shall pay half a mina.

213. If he strike the maid-servant of a man, and she lose her child, he shall pay two shekels in money.

214. If this maid-servant die, he shall pay one-third of a mina.


218. If a physician make a large incision with the operating knife, and kill him, or open a tumor with the operating knife, and cut out the eye, his hands shall be cut off.

219. If a physician make a large incision in the slave of a freed man, and kill him, he shall replace the slave with another slave.

229 If a builder build a house for some one, and does not construct it properly, and the house which he built fall in and kill its owner, then that builder shall be put to death.

230. If it kill the son of the owner the son of that builder shall be put to death.

231. If it kill a slave of the owner, then he shall pay slave for slave to the owner of the house.

252. If he kill a man's slave, he shall pay one-third of a mina.

The bolded lines deal with violence towards women - and the punishment even if the woman dies from being struck is a fine or the execution of someone other than the man who committed the violence. On the other hand, the sentence for robbery is death.
  #42  
Old 01-04-2020, 04:25 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 43,519
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
Wait, what's the complaint here? That Biden repeated a myth as fact that, for most of his life, had been widely accepted as fact? That he wasn't up to date on the debunking of that myth?

Or that it would somehow make a difference in how a Biden Presidency handled issues relating to violence against and abuse of women?

If the former - well, I'm not exactly one of Biden's biggest defenders on this board (quite the opposite!), but oh dearle me. :fans self, clutches pearls: Can we criticize Biden over something that actually matters? Plenty of that to go around.

If the latter, then maybe you're on better ground, but you gotta make the connection for me. I'm not seeing it.....
Yeah, this is petty crap. This is the kind of thing that the Kremlin likes to spread on social media. It's true, but it's blown 10000 times out of proportion. It's a common myth widely believed. No, not here, a skeptics paradise, but out in the real world, where most people have never even heard of Snopes.
  #43  
Old 01-04-2020, 04:40 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 43,519
Quote:
Originally Posted by margin View Post
..
A battered woman in this country has an almost 50/50 chance of summoning another abuser to her door if she calls the police for help. The police skew very heavily to white, male, conservative.

Wife beating and rape have a lot of similarities and rape is often part of domestic violence.
See, you took a number way out of context: ""Two studies have found that at least 40 percent of police officer families experience domestic violence, in contrast to 10 percent of families in the general population. " So, 40% is not 50% and "police officer families experience domestic violence" does not mean the police officer is doing the violence. The spouse could be or Uncle Joe or anyone in the family.
Read on to "

A third study of older and more experienced officers found a rate of 24 percent, indicating that domestic violence is two to four times more common among police families than American families in general."


So, that's a more solid study, but still all it says is that "domestic violence is two to four times more common among police families " Not that police officers hit their wives 24% more than other occupations.

and those numbers are based upon scant evidence: "Research is so scant and inadequate that a precise accounting of the problem's scope is impossible, as The New York Times concluded in a 2013 investigation....".

and "One such study, published in 2000, said one in 10 officers at seven police agencies admitted that they had “slapped, punched or otherwise injured” a spouse or domestic partner." oddly 10% is the national average amoung all occupations.

Mind you, being a cop is a stressful job, so I dont doubt the rate is somewhat higher than being a accountant. But the numbers in your cite are 10%, 24% and 40%- (and the last tow in the family in general) and then you jumped to 50%.

One issue is that a newish federal law means that a cop convicted of even misdemeanor domestic abuse loses his job.

But your little line there also seems to imply that a abuser is going to let other abusers off easy. No evidence for that. Domestic abuse calls are hated by cops, and the abused spouse often wont provide testimony and will too often attack the cop. My buddy , who was went to a abuse call, saw the woman there, bleeding with a tooth knocked out and everything- a ambulance had to be called. While he was putting the cufsf on the guy, the woman attacked him with a steak knife, jumping on the cops back, stabbing him repeatedly screaming "let him alone!". (The knife didnt penetrate the vest and only caused a few stitches, fortunately. )Stories like that are common, which explain why cops are lolth to make arrests. Nothing to do with the point that cops are sometimes abusers themselves.
  #44  
Old 01-04-2020, 04:42 PM
puzzlegal's Avatar
puzzlegal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 5,396
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jophiel View Post
Without the full context of how he came to (mis)attribute the phrase "Rule of Thumb", I have a hard time understanding why this is supposed to upset me beyond "Biden got a widely repeated factoid wrong".

What exactly is anyone supposed to be defending?
I'm also struggling with why I should care that Biden said something mostly true but illustrated with a factoid that's false. I _think_ UltraVires is upset that Biden is suggesting that men are constantly struggling with the urge to beat their wives (although I don't read Biden's post that way at all) and with the idea that Biden suggests that there are problems with our cultural heritage, and that it's divisive to do so

Bolding and red color mine:
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
It is not simply the "Rule of Thumb" misquote. It is bad enough that he cannot check a claim that has been debunked for twenty-five years.

My problem is his whole spiel. That our culture allowed untold amounts of spousal murder and the response of judges was to introduce a rule that you could only beat your wife a little but not a lot with the implication that this heritage has stayed with us today and why fighting domestic abuse is so hard.

That's simply an absolute lie. It has not been acceptable in our society for at least 300 years even to lay a hand on your wife. No decent person beats their wife.

The problem is that for too many years people did not understand the dynamic of abuse and underestimated the ability of an abused woman to leave a relationship. Let's fix the problem starting with that understanding, not with the idea that men have to mentally fight every day to keep from murdering women.

I don't agree with the talking point that Dems hate America, but this is fodder. It is a mainstream presidential candidate simply lying in an attempt to show how utterly evil our culture is.

It is not about being stupid or idiotic. It is actively misleading and dangerous.

I agree that the "learn to code" was insulting, but at least it wasn't prefaced with a wholly false narrative. When/if Trump says something similar, I'll post in that thread.

Last edited by puzzlegal; 01-04-2020 at 04:43 PM. Reason: adding red
  #45  
Old 01-04-2020, 05:41 PM
RitterSport's Avatar
RitterSport is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,756
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
I don't think the actual gripe here is whether domestic violence is OK or not (it's not okay,) but rather that Biden is promoting a clearly debunked falsehood. And Snopes also went easy on him.


It's akin to someone telling an audience that the human brain is an amazing organ (it is indeed,) but then citing the false "we only use 10% of our brains" myth in his speech. Just tell the truth and truth alone.
This can't be true, because otherwise I'm sure the OP would have started new threads for each of Trump's 13,000+ falsehoods and errors. That is, if it were only about making a speaking mistake. Why, I don't even see his thread on Pence's claim that there were 12 hijackers on September 11. So, I suspect there may be something else to his complaint -- maybe read his own actual words in this very thread?
  #46  
Old 01-04-2020, 09:00 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 43,519
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
...

I agree that the "learn to code" was insulting, but at least it wasn't prefaced with a wholly false narrative. When/if Trump says something similar, I'll post in that thread.
This kind of thing is very typical of Kremlin spread anti- Biden propaganda.

Actually, taken in context it wasnt insulting at all.

Yeah, I checked your posting history, I dont see the dozen or so posts per day there that last statement would require. And by a dozen, I am being very conservative.

Lets us just start with ONE fucking speech: https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/19/polit...ent/index.html

Sixty five outrageous lines of which at least half are more outrageous than Biden little comment.

Where are your 30 posts on that speech? Cite?

But wait, let's go back a little to some six months ago:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/18/polit...ech/index.html

I didnt see a couple dozen posts back in July, either, hmmm.

There's more:

https://www.theatlantic.com/unthinkable/

and this

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...int-usa-speech

and these racist comments:
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine...mments/588067/

wait, there's more!
http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/...wednesday.html

"Thank you to Wayne Allyn Root for the very nice words. “President Trump is the greatest President for Jews and for Israel in the history of the world, not just America, he is the best President for Israel in the history of the world...and the Jewish people in Israel love him...." Biden, in his long history of lovable gaffes has never come close to that one.

Like he’s the King of Israel. They love him like he is the second coming of God...But American Jews don’t know him or like him. They don’t even know what they’re doing or saying anymore. It makes no sense! But that’s OK, if he keeps doing what he’s doing, he’s good for....all Jews, Blacks, Gays, everyone. And importantly, he’s good for everyone in America who wants a job.” Wow!


Can you top this with ANY Biden gaffe?
In that same press scrum on the White House lawn, Trump said he is looking “very seriously” into an executive order to end birthright citizenship, which was established by the 14th Amendment and passed in 1868 in order to secure citizenship for former slaves....President Trump: "We are looking at birthright citizenship very seriously. ... It's frankly ridiculous"

Basically, your claim:"When/if Trump says something similar, I'll post in that thread." will need a lot of work, like a full time job.
  #47  
Old 01-05-2020, 12:59 AM
raventhief's Avatar
raventhief is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 5,164
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
You mean got away with as in the crime was not found out? I agree with that. But if you mean got away with in the sense that if it was discovered and reported that a judge might say, "Well, that was his wife so he is privileged to kill her"? If the latter, then I very much disagree.

Even at the time of Blackstone, he stated that there was an "ancient law" that permitted a man to discipline his wife much like he could (and still today can) discipline a child, but Blackstone noted that today (in his time) such a privilege was no longer applicable.

I would be interested in seeing just a single case where a man was acquitted or not prosecuted because of some privilege to beat his wife so severely even if it caused her death. I have no reason to think that he wouldn't be prosecuted with murder.

And that puts aside Biden's assertion that is was so very common that judges had to get together and invent a rule of only modest beatings to prevent "so many wives ... being beaten to death by their husbands."

Domestic violence is a serious concern, but it is utterly irresponsible to suggest that it has been part of our culture for hundreds of years. The concern is not that polite society allowed it, indeed that was never the mark of a good or proper husband, but that society for years had a "well it can't be that bad or else she would leave him" attitude that vastly oversimplified the problem and did not get to the root of the problem.

It is very dangerous, especially given that he should know better, as it militarizes groups against society on a falsehood.

Is this the full Blackstone quote?

The husband also (by the old law) might give his wife moderate correction. For, as he is to answer for her misbehaviour, the law thought it reasonable to entrust him with the power of restraining her, by domestic chastisement.... But, with us, in the politer reign of Charles the Second, this power of correction began to be doubted: and a wife may now have security of the peace against her husband; or, in return, a husband against his wife....Yet the lower rank of people, who were always fond of the old common law, still claim and exert their ancient privilege: and the courts of law will still permit a husband to restrain a wife of her liberty, in case of any gross misbehavior.

Bolding in both my own. If this were no longer applicable on the time of Blackstone, what were the "lower rank of people" exerting?
  #48  
Old 01-05-2020, 09:11 AM
RitterSport's Avatar
RitterSport is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,756
Quote:
Originally Posted by raventhief View Post
Is this the full Blackstone quote?

The husband also (by the old law) might give his wife moderate correction. For, as he is to answer for her misbehaviour, the law thought it reasonable to entrust him with the power of restraining her, by domestic chastisement.... But, with us, in the politer reign of Charles the Second, this power of correction began to be doubted: and a wife may now have security of the peace against her husband; or, in return, a husband against his wife....Yet the lower rank of people, who were always fond of the old common law, still claim and exert their ancient privilege: and the courts of law will still permit a husband to restrain a wife of her liberty, in case of any gross misbehavior.

Bolding in both my own. If this were no longer applicable on the time of Blackstone, what were the "lower rank of people" exerting?
And, the people of lower rank were, what, 50%-90% of the population? So, UV, is it your view that domestic violence is not an issue if only, say, [75%] of the population is still allowed to do it?

raventhief, thanks for finding the full quote! That was some out-of-context quoting by the OP.
  #49  
Old 01-05-2020, 11:08 AM
CairoCarol is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Hawaii
Posts: 5,210
I think the OP has BDS (Biden Derangement Syndrome).
__________________
If I waited for memory to serve, I'd starve.
  #50  
Old 01-05-2020, 11:14 AM
Jonathan Chance is online now
Domo Arigato Mister Moderato
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: On the run with Kilroy
Posts: 23,396

The Moderator Speaks


Let's keep the personal cracks under control, please.

That goes for everyone.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:55 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017