# Steve MB -- let's talk about domestic violence again **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [May 20, 2010, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/steve-mb-lets-talk-about-domestic-violence-again/540131 "2010-05-20T15:22:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2010, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/steve-mb-lets-talk-about-domestic-violence-again/540131/41 "2010-05-20T21:59:08Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > 1. I did vote for Obama. > 2. It’s true I said I wouldn’t, in a fit of anger… and it’s also true that I withdrew from that claim in the very same thread I made it, within 24 hours of making it. > 3. So speaking of disingenuous arguments… Doesn’t change the disingenuousness of the thread in the first place. The very connections you made between your alleged intention to vote for Obama, on the one hand, and your reneging on that because of the behavior of some of his supporters, on the other, were completely spurious and, to use your own word, outrageous. The fact that you later conceded that you were a complete dick doesn’t change the fact that you were a complete dick. I recognize that this board relies, for the most part, on taking at face value the things other posters tell us about their intentions and beliefs, but i’m still not sure i believe Point 1, above. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2010, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/steve-mb-lets-talk-about-domestic-violence-again/540131/42 "2010-05-20T22:03:13Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I don’t mean by any stretch of the imagination to say that ALL instances of being wrong were disingenuous. I do mean to say this particular one was. It ran completely and obviously counter to the plain language of the statute. > > And if that weren’t proof enough – when 11 months and one week had gone by, does **Steve MB** say, “Yeah, OK, I might have been wrong?” > > No. He pops in to say that the original timeline didn’t allow for “a few weeks’” wriggle room. Is that the action of someone who was arguing in good faith at the time? Is it? > > No. You were right and he was wrong. There. Someone said it. Is that sufficient material for your jerk-off session, or do you need some fluffing to help you along? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2010, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/steve-mb-lets-talk-about-domestic-violence-again/540131/43 "2010-05-20T22:32:37Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > Doesn’t change the disingenuousness of the thread in the first place. > > The very connections you made between your alleged intention to vote for Obama, on the one hand, and your reneging on that because of the behavior of some of his supporters, on the other, were completely spurious and, to use your own word, outrageous. > > The fact that you later conceded that you were a complete dick doesn’t change the fact that you were a complete dick. There’s only one possible response to that. It’s true. Yes, I was a complete dick. Now, I think there was some provocation, but when the sun set on that day, the fact is that I acted like a complete and utter ass. No defense at all, except to say, as I did then, that I was wrong and I apologize. > [@](#): > > I recognize that this board relies, for the most part, on taking at face value the things other posters tell us about their intentions and beliefs, but i’m still not sure i believe Point 1, above. That, too, is fair, given my general leanings and established beliefs. In response, I can affirm again that it’s true, and I can point (if you want) to the first time I said it, shortly after the election, when (presumably) I wouldn’t have had much motive to dissemble. And I can even share my reasoning: 1. McCain’s scattered response towards the financial crisis. (“Let’s suspend the campaign! Immediately! OK! Never mind!”) 2. Palin. 3. Obama’s clear integrity and commitment to a new way of campaigning and leading. Again, don’t know how convincing that is, but it’s the truth. ---
**Author:** ![Trepa\_Mayfield](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/edb3f5/32.png) [@Trepa\_Mayfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trepa_Mayfield)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2010, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/steve-mb-lets-talk-about-domestic-violence-again/540131/44 "2010-05-20T23:53:24Z")
I say to you what I said to kanicbird: Rock. On. ---
**Author:** ![Typo\_Negative](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/typo_negative/32/484_2.png) [@Typo\_Negative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Typo_Negative)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2010, 3:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/steve-mb-lets-talk-about-domestic-violence-again/540131/45 "2010-05-21T03:37:00Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > It ran completely and obviously counter to the plain language of the statute. I got no dog in this fight, but I gotta ask. Don’t a lot of lawyers make a lot of money arguing about what the ‘plain language’ in a statute means? ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2010, 10:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/steve-mb-lets-talk-about-domestic-violence-again/540131/46 "2010-05-21T10:54:27Z")
> [@](#): > > **Bricker** : 1. I did vote for Obama. q549=-q62-6-c=b\q(Smashes head into keyboard) I KNEW IT! I KNEW IT! There is a God! > [@](#): > > Yes, I was a complete dick. Now, I think there was some provocation, but when the sun set on that day, the fact is that I acted like a complete and utter ass. No defense at all, except to say, as I did then, that I was wrong and I apologize. I’m doing it in needlepoint for you. What colors and font do you prefer? You _do_ have _feelings_ to go with your mind and your tenacity! > [@](#): > > **Shot from Guns** : Although it would have been funnier if the thread had ended with Bricker chasing Steve MB down a crowded street, screaming, “WHERE IS YOUR GOD NOW?!” Thread, hell! Hey, this is going to make a great movie. Your post is the last scene. Then over the end titles you hear \*\*Bricker’s \*\* voice: > [@](#): > > it doesn’t matter, especially in view of the fact that allowing Pelosi and the Democrats to retain control of the White House after 2010 will lead to massive economic failures followed by widespread nationalization of key industries. It’s literally certain…\*\*Trust me. \*\* ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2010, 12:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/steve-mb-lets-talk-about-domestic-violence-again/540131/47 "2010-05-21T12:05:05Z")
> [@spooje](#): > > I got no dog in this fight, but I gotta ask. Don’t a lot of lawyers make a lot of money arguing about what the ‘plain language’ in a statute means? Seldom. Well, in a sense, he amended. The usual argument is that the language in a statute is ambiguous or unclear, so that we have to look to the legislative intent, or some other external factor to determine the meaning. In this case, that argument simply doesn’t fly. And as evidence I’ll point out, again, that in the nearly four years since this law passed, _not one case_ of domestic violence has included the argument that the statute is inapplicable because Virginia’s DOMA vitiates it. So if such an argument were even remotely plausible, it stands to reason that some lawyer somewhere would have rolled the dice. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2010, 12:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/steve-mb-lets-talk-about-domestic-violence-again/540131/48 "2010-05-21T12:10:23Z")
> [@Zoe](#): > > q549=-q62-6-c=b\q(Smashes head into keyboard) I KNEW IT! I KNEW IT! There is a God! Really? Why? It was not a slam-dunk call for me. I found myself making the same sorts of calculations that **RTFirefly** discusses in the ‘lying politician’ thread: is it better to get an intelligent, calm, principled leader in who unfortunately has fundamental beliefs about the role of government that I disagree with… or better to get in a less intelligent, less calm, less principled leader who will probably push forward in more directions I believe in? In the final analysis, I thought the country needed Obama more than McCain, even though as a general rule, I think the GOP’s approach is better for the country than the Democrats’. But head to head, at that time in 2008, Obama was the better choice. But apart from my self-reporting… I have to say I doubt you “knew” it. ---
**Author:** ![Rhythmdvl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/85f322/32.png) [@Rhythmdvl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rhythmdvl)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2010, 12:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/steve-mb-lets-talk-about-domestic-violence-again/540131/49 "2010-05-21T12:46:49Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > > [@spooje](#): > > > > I got no dog in this fight, but I gotta ask. Don’t a lot of lawyers make a lot of money arguing about what the ‘plain language’ in a statute means? > > The usual argument is that the language in a statute is ambiguous or unclear, so that we have to look to the legislative intent, or some other external factor to determine the meaning. OT: Wait, what? I’m confused. In my (admittedly limited) experience with environmental law and a few other areas, there were many situations in which one party was arguing that they were/were not allowed to do _X_ because of the plain language of a statute, while the other party argued that they were/were not allowed to do so because of a _different_ plain meaning, or as you mentioned that it was ambiguous, unclear, or not within the spirit of the regulation. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2010, 1:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/steve-mb-lets-talk-about-domestic-violence-again/540131/50 "2010-05-21T13:22:54Z")
> [@Rhythmdvl](#): > > OT: > Wait, what? I’m confused. In my (admittedly limited) experience with environmental law and a few other areas, there were many situations in which one party was arguing that they were/were not allowed to do _X_ because of the plain language of a statute, while the other party argued that they were/were not allowed to do so because of a _different_ plain meaning, or as you mentioned that it was ambiguous, unclear, or not within the spirit of the regulation. Which is why I said “in a sense.” ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2010, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/steve-mb-lets-talk-about-domestic-violence-again/540131/51 "2010-05-21T14:27:25Z")
Says the proud, self-proclaimed “textualist”. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Martiju](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e8c25b/32.png) [@Martiju](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martiju)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2010, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/steve-mb-lets-talk-about-domestic-violence-again/540131/52 "2010-05-21T14:49:13Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > …so I had no room to declare victory. Cos that’s what life is all about isn’t it… “Naaahh, I WAS right, see… :p” At least do provide us with the grand reveal in this case, otherwise you’re going to look like you’re just obsessing over one argument in one thread four years ago. FOUR YEARS AGO!!! ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2010, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/steve-mb-lets-talk-about-domestic-violence-again/540131/53 "2010-05-21T15:23:11Z")
> [@Martiju](#): > > Cos that’s what life is all about isn’t it… “Naaahh, I WAS right, see… :p” > > At least do provide us with the grand reveal in this case, otherwise you’re going to look like you’re just obsessing over one argument in one thread four years ago. FOUR YEARS AGO!!! There is no grand reveal. I think **Eonwe** said it perfectly, above: > [@](#): > > There is nothing more infuriating in debate or discussion than people throwing out definitive claims about the horrors of the future, because there is no argument against it in the moment. > > Person 1: “If your side allows that to happen, then Hitler and Elvis will come down out of the sky and enslave us all!!” > > Person 2: “um . . . no.” > > Person 1: “Uh huh! Just you wait and see!” > > . . . so, how do you prevent this sort of ‘argument’ from impeding any actual discussion about things? Do you just suck it up and wait for the next time and run into the same stonewalling based on an imaginary future, or do you call the person out on it? So what’s your answer to that question? How do you prevent this sort of tactic from being used in discussion? And look at the trickery: now you scream that it’s four years ago – way too long! But in a thread nearly a year after the event, the defense was that enough time HADN’T gone by – that more time was needed to see the claimed horror would emerge. So when should this thread have been posted - eh? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2010, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/steve-mb-lets-talk-about-domestic-violence-again/540131/54 "2010-05-21T15:32:28Z")
Um … never? ---
**Author:** ![mlees](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@mlees](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mlees)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2010, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/steve-mb-lets-talk-about-domestic-violence-again/540131/55 "2010-05-21T15:48:54Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Oh, I dunno. There’s no real penalty for spouting bullshit, or continuing to spout bullshit about how your original bullshit wasn’t bullshit at all. It would force honest debate only among people who are willing to recognize error, and we ain’t got too many folks like that. Hi. Where do I collect my reward? ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2010, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/steve-mb-lets-talk-about-domestic-violence-again/540131/56 "2010-05-22T01:42:50Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Oh, I dunno. There’s no real penalty for spouting bullshit, or continuing to spout bullshit about how your original bullshit wasn’t bullshit at all. It would force honest debate only among people who are willing to recognize error, and we ain’t got too many folks like that. That’s true. There are few things as infuriating as the person who so conveniently forgets anything that is inconvenient at the moment, and waves it off with a “I never said that” - when you know damn well he did. ---
**Author:** ![elbows](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/b3f665/32.png) [@elbows](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elbows)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2010, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/steve-mb-lets-talk-about-domestic-violence-again/540131/57 "2010-05-23T00:17:26Z")
We are all duly humbled by the righteousness of your clear and spectacular victory. There now, does that do it for you? Can we move on now, y’know, to things that freaking matter. This has to be the lamest thread I’ve seen, in ten years of the Dope. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2010, 5:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/steve-mb-lets-talk-about-domestic-violence-again/540131/58 "2010-05-23T05:16:23Z")
> [@elbows](#): > > We are all duly humbled by the righteousness of your clear and spectacular victory. > > There now, does that do it for you? > > Can we move on now, y’know, to things that freaking matter. > > This has to be the lamest thread I’ve seen, in ten years of the Dope. Don’t worry – the thread three years from now, when I start asking people where the racial profiling in Arizona is… that thread will break this record, because everyone will line up for that one to declare how foolish I am to insist on that victory; that it doesn’t matter because the issue is three years old, and maybe one or two will insist that it’s just a matter of time, and those racial abuses will be coming soon. Right? ---
**Author:** ![The\_Surb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ce73a5/32.png) [@The\_Surb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Surb)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2010, 1:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/steve-mb-lets-talk-about-domestic-violence-again/540131/59 "2010-05-23T13:15:31Z")
> [@elbows](#): > > We are all duly humbled by the righteousness of your clear and spectacular victory. > > There now, does that do it for you? > > Can we move on now, y’know, to things that freaking matter. > > This has to be the lamest thread I’ve seen, in ten years of the Dope. That may be, but [this](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=564081) thread is damn close second. ---
**Author:** ![elbows](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/b3f665/32.png) [@elbows](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elbows)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2010, 2:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/steve-mb-lets-talk-about-domestic-violence-again/540131/60 "2010-05-23T14:12:54Z")
Sorry you feel that way **Surb**. I’ll try to do better next time, promise!😃 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/steve-mb-lets-talk-about-domestic-violence-again/540131.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/steve-mb-lets-talk-about-domestic-violence-again/540131.md?page=4)