We have had two debates on this site thus far. The first was with a feminist quisling over the issue of domestic violence. It was a lot of fun. Well, not so much for the quisling, but for me and for readers here.
The second one was a mistake on my part. I debated a young man on the relative value of pussy-centrism. It took way more time and effort than it was worth, and didn’t produce more than a distraction that was probably more boring than whatever we were being distracted from.
Well, I have gone and done it again. Hopefully this debate will serve two functions. The first is as an amends for the last debate, and the second is a vetting of a very controversial idea, even within the MRM.
Jury nullification at rape trials as a way to undermine inequities against men in the criminal justice system’s handling of that crime.
Obviously, I will be taking the pro position in the debate, as I have already written on the matter extensively.
My opposition is a blogger that goes by the handle Johann the Cabbie.
I was recently pointed to an article of his which said some pretty disparaging things about AVfM, calling it a “sick, disgusting site,” and about yours truly, referring to me as the “shit in charge.” But I don’t intend to let that sum this person up, especially for the purpose of this debate. There does appear to be more to Johann the Cabbie than a quick, hostile reaction to AVfM.
Case in point, he also questioned whether femitheist Matt Dillahunty, a high profile and popular Atheist who founded a Texas based group called The Atheist Experience, was pussy-whipped. He accurately pointed out that Dillahunty is a really rational guy….unless it concerns feminism.
“The whole gang at The Atheist Experience have abandoned rationality when it comes to feminism,” said Johann. This apparently did not sit well with Dillahunty, who posted a long, sneering, nonsensical rebuttal to Johann’s blog.
The fact that Cabbie appears to have the capacity for rational thought, even when there is a feminist in the room, and the fact that he writes with an analytical pen (mostly), makes him a worthy candidate for this type of debate.
The nullification question is an important one, especially as it is has fostered so much dissent, even in our own ranks. I think it provides a good opportunity for discussion and deserves an opponent committed to taking the con on other than ideological grounds.
I think it also serves as a way to highlight the growing schism in the Atheist community between feminist ideologues and those who continue to enjoy the rational part of rational thought.
There will be three exchanges starting this weekend, with a 72 hour limit on returning responses. Johann will start.
I respectfully request readers refrain from ad hominem in the comments. Let’s enjoy a healthy and robust debate on a very important subject.