Sometimes The Bad Guys Win(ittybiz.com)
ittybiz.com
Sometimes The Bad Guys Win
http://ittybiz.com/sometimes-the-bad-guys-win/
11 comments
"At midnight www.letterstodavenavarro.com will launch with all the SEO force I can muster." I searched for "dave navarro", and could not find the site in the first 100 results. There's a famous "dave navarro" that takes most of the results. So I am not sure Dave's reputation did get that much trouble.
Anthony is mentally ill. This is what restraining orders are made for.
the problem isn't Anthony, or at least he isn't the biggest problem here. The main problem is that there are people who would listen to and act (for example by doing or not doing business with the victim) upon the Internet gossip. It doesn't really matter whether Dave and the author had or didn't have the affair - even if they had it would be their private life that is of no concern to anybody else.
I would say that a man who's repeatedly threatening to murder you is definitely a big fucking problem. I'd rather have my reputation ruined than be murdered by a guy who hears voices telling him divorce is bad.
A restraining order wouldn't prevent him from slandering him on a website and otherwise ruining his life from afar.
IANAL, but I believe the process is 1) restraining order, 2) contempt, 3) civil suit, 4) injunction
This should allow you to cross the state jurisdiction bounds. Also with the civil suit you could start talking about taking away his property. That has a tendency to get people's attention.
Perhaps an attorney can weigh in. As I understand it, there is legal recourse available. But it'll take several months, and I don't offer that as a solution. She asked what to do instead of wait it out, and taking legal action of her own is the first thing I would do, even if I had to file the papers myself.
This should allow you to cross the state jurisdiction bounds. Also with the civil suit you could start talking about taking away his property. That has a tendency to get people's attention.
Perhaps an attorney can weigh in. As I understand it, there is legal recourse available. But it'll take several months, and I don't offer that as a solution. She asked what to do instead of wait it out, and taking legal action of her own is the first thing I would do, even if I had to file the papers myself.
http://letterstodavenavarro.com/ MeanSite1
http://saltydroid.info/naomi-dunfords-death-threats-and-hate.... (This is MeanSite2)
http://saltydroid.info/letter-to-two-dave-navarros/ more background
I stand behind my comment from the original post here. Her account was fictionalised to the point of not being recognisable. The other side of the story could have be its own fiction for all I care, but this isn't about a strong successful woman. It's about some fundie religious guy stalking his brother to prevent a divorce caused by allegedly falling into the "internet marketing lifestyle" that MeanSite2 rallies against.
Internet drama is a great way to relax at night.
Edit: And after upon further reflection this Dave Navarro fellow didn't like his life and found a new family unit online, which includes our heroine. Not agreeing with the fundie's methods (which do seem psychotic) but it does seem this guy ditched his family for the fast and furious world of internet marketing.
http://saltydroid.info/naomi-dunfords-death-threats-and-hate.... (This is MeanSite2)
http://saltydroid.info/letter-to-two-dave-navarros/ more background
I stand behind my comment from the original post here. Her account was fictionalised to the point of not being recognisable. The other side of the story could have be its own fiction for all I care, but this isn't about a strong successful woman. It's about some fundie religious guy stalking his brother to prevent a divorce caused by allegedly falling into the "internet marketing lifestyle" that MeanSite2 rallies against.
Internet drama is a great way to relax at night.
Edit: And after upon further reflection this Dave Navarro fellow didn't like his life and found a new family unit online, which includes our heroine. Not agreeing with the fundie's methods (which do seem psychotic) but it does seem this guy ditched his family for the fast and furious world of internet marketing.
That's probably the most terrifying thing I've ever read.
Not to be the guy who takes it there, but religion isn't always just a harmless quirk (if you consider a willful disregard for facts a harmless quirk).
Religion is an excuse and a justification. I'm willing to bet that if you removed religion from this situation this guy would be just as crazy.
Cultural and religious homogeneity I'm much more afraid of - it's the magic sauce that breeds this form of ignorance and insanity.
Cultural and religious homogeneity I'm much more afraid of - it's the magic sauce that breeds this form of ignorance and insanity.
I'm atheist, but I always find this claim silly and self-serving to judgmental atheists/anti-religion folks. The religious mumbo jumbo is a rationalization. This man is sick and broken. People aren't made perfect and occasionally some of us don't work right.
Moreover, I think it's been established that the reasons people give for decisions are generally rationalizations, and the decision itself was made beforehand through incompletely understood mechanisms.
Moreover, I think it's been established that the reasons people give for decisions are generally rationalizations, and the decision itself was made beforehand through incompletely understood mechanisms.
Believing a "Scientist" isn't always harmless either. History is full of people who used this or that pseudoscience to justify their actions. People do stupid, harmful, hateful things to other people. What they use to justify it has little bearing on their likelihood of doing it. Religion is an often used scapegoat but just about anything can be a scapegoat for anyone so religion isn't special in that regard.
(full disclosure: I'm a devout christian myself and what she describes is just about as anti-christian as you can get.)
(Edit: spelling and grammar)
(Edit2: In case the above was misunderstood the anti-christrian behaviour was on the part of Anthony the brother and those who joined him. Not on the part of Dave or the Articles author)
(full disclosure: I'm a devout christian myself and what she describes is just about as anti-christian as you can get.)
(Edit: spelling and grammar)
(Edit2: In case the above was misunderstood the anti-christrian behaviour was on the part of Anthony the brother and those who joined him. Not on the part of Dave or the Articles author)
I agree that a lot of bad and crazy people try to justify their actions based on religion. However, that doesn't mean that religion isn't harmful in itself.
Tens of millions of people have died due to purely religious beliefs. I won't go into history (way too much to cover there), but even today people are driven into death because of religion. Thousands of people are suffering and eventually dying in Africa because the Catolic church has led them to believe that use of condoms are immoral. People are killed because they have the wrong religion. Even in America, a lot of people are shunned and/or driven to suicide due to either being gay or atheist.
BTW, I'm getting sick of the "he's not a Christian because he's not good"-trend. Being a Christian has nothing to do with what you do, it has to do with what you believe. You're a Christian if you professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ.
Tens of millions of people have died due to purely religious beliefs. I won't go into history (way too much to cover there), but even today people are driven into death because of religion. Thousands of people are suffering and eventually dying in Africa because the Catolic church has led them to believe that use of condoms are immoral. People are killed because they have the wrong religion. Even in America, a lot of people are shunned and/or driven to suicide due to either being gay or atheist.
BTW, I'm getting sick of the "he's not a Christian because he's not good"-trend. Being a Christian has nothing to do with what you do, it has to do with what you believe. You're a Christian if you professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ.
I don't see anything anti-christian about this. Can you please elaborate?
The brother doing the harrasing was very anti-christian. Attacking and defaming another human being violates the foundation of the Christian Faith which states that all people are deserving of respect, love, and unconditional forgiveness. Mounting a compaign of hate against another is the polar opposite of "What Jesus Would Do" to borrow from a popularized religious phrase.
If you thought I was referring to articles author I apologize as that's not what I was meaning to say.
If you thought I was referring to articles author I apologize as that's not what I was meaning to say.
This is a little bit of a No True Scotsman fallacy, no? The problem I see with religion (Christianity in particular, but thats mostly due to where I live rather than the religion itself) is that everyone has their version of what a "real Christian" does.
The problem is that the Bible is not very internally consistent. At some points it tells us to love everyone regardless. At others it tells us certain people deserve to die. As far as I can tell, there is no objective definition of what being a "true Christian" entails.
Every consistent guide to life via some religion is just going to be cherry-picked from the grander whole of the religion's beliefs and texts.
While I'm inclined to agree that unconditional forgiveness and following WWJD is probably the better Christian (well, one I'd like to share this Earth with), keep in mind the crazies also believe they're standing on solid scriptural ground.
This generalizes to just about every religion, for what it's worth...
The problem is that the Bible is not very internally consistent. At some points it tells us to love everyone regardless. At others it tells us certain people deserve to die. As far as I can tell, there is no objective definition of what being a "true Christian" entails.
Every consistent guide to life via some religion is just going to be cherry-picked from the grander whole of the religion's beliefs and texts.
While I'm inclined to agree that unconditional forgiveness and following WWJD is probably the better Christian (well, one I'd like to share this Earth with), keep in mind the crazies also believe they're standing on solid scriptural ground.
This generalizes to just about every religion, for what it's worth...
Crazies often believe they're standing on solid scientific ground. Yet it's not "No True Scotsman" [0] to point out that their "science" explicitly contradicts solidly tested science, violates scientific principles, and is total garbage.
The same can be said regarding various religions. While there is room to disagree over the scope of certain commands, or whether certain statements are figurative, or how exactly to reconcile difficult statements [1], there are certain well-attested fundamental principles within most religions which are agreed upon by diverse sects. It is not a fallacy to point out that someone claiming religion X violates its core tenets and therefore is not legitimately practicing that religion.
[0] what makes NTS a fallacy is that irrelevant criteria are being used to exclude an entity from a group they actually belong to. It is not NTS to point out that James Doohan was a Canadian of English/Irish descent, and not actually a Scotsman.
[1] in texts I've read from many religions, oft-criticized statements would be better described as "difficult to reconcile" than actually inconsistent or contradictory. The example you give is not even particularly difficult to make sense of; in the Bible, everyone deserves death, yet Yahweh shows love and offers forgiveness to all, so asking His followers to do the same is not at all surprising.
The same can be said regarding various religions. While there is room to disagree over the scope of certain commands, or whether certain statements are figurative, or how exactly to reconcile difficult statements [1], there are certain well-attested fundamental principles within most religions which are agreed upon by diverse sects. It is not a fallacy to point out that someone claiming religion X violates its core tenets and therefore is not legitimately practicing that religion.
[0] what makes NTS a fallacy is that irrelevant criteria are being used to exclude an entity from a group they actually belong to. It is not NTS to point out that James Doohan was a Canadian of English/Irish descent, and not actually a Scotsman.
[1] in texts I've read from many religions, oft-criticized statements would be better described as "difficult to reconcile" than actually inconsistent or contradictory. The example you give is not even particularly difficult to make sense of; in the Bible, everyone deserves death, yet Yahweh shows love and offers forgiveness to all, so asking His followers to do the same is not at all surprising.
Whether we should or should not kill, much less harass, other humans is not one of the fundamentals that is agreed upon by many diverse sects of Christianity.
Everyone does not deserve death. That is just as absurd as the thing it is trying to rationalise.
Everyone does not deserve death. That is just as absurd as the thing it is trying to rationalise.
I am aware of disagreement between Christian sects on matters of killing as a part of warfare and killing in self defense. Every sect I am aware of agrees that you should not kill someone simply because they anger, disappoint, or "dishonor" you. Likewise, I am aware of disagreement between sects on how far one should go to avoid giving offense, but I am not aware of any sect that considers the sort of threats given in the parent article to be acceptable behavior.
US law often cites the "reasonable person" standard (for example, if a reasonable person would feel threatened). The same standard can be applied here -- a "reasonable person" can disagree as to what the Bible teaches about killing as a part of warfare, but I do not see any way a "reasonable person" who is familiar with the Bible as a whole could conclude that this guy's behavior is acceptable.
Note that one need not be a Christian to assess this. One need only be a "reasonable person" who is familiar with the source material.
US law often cites the "reasonable person" standard (for example, if a reasonable person would feel threatened). The same standard can be applied here -- a "reasonable person" can disagree as to what the Bible teaches about killing as a part of warfare, but I do not see any way a "reasonable person" who is familiar with the Bible as a whole could conclude that this guy's behavior is acceptable.
Note that one need not be a Christian to assess this. One need only be a "reasonable person" who is familiar with the source material.
How do Christians in Uganda or Christians of old stack up in all this? Isn't the premise of Faith itself unreasonable?
Also, do you consider WBC to be unreasonable? What about parents who disown children who are gay or convert to a different faith? Are they unreasonable and do that not because of their own faith?
You are right that very recent, popular, western versions of Christianity don't normally allow people doctrinally to be hostile but isn't that attributable to outside influences?
Also, do you consider WBC to be unreasonable? What about parents who disown children who are gay or convert to a different faith? Are they unreasonable and do that not because of their own faith?
You are right that very recent, popular, western versions of Christianity don't normally allow people doctrinally to be hostile but isn't that attributable to outside influences?
> "Isn't the premise of Faith itself unreasonable?"
It's only in the past hundred years or so (with the rise of Christian Fundamentalism in the 1920s) that "faith" has been used to mean "the opposite of reason" or "believing something without evidence". In ancient religious writings (particularly Christian and Jewish) and in most of religious history, "faith" means acting upon something you know from experience to be true, particularly in the face of adversity. Far from being unreasonable, it can be thought of as the triumph of reason and experience over temporary emotion. This also matches with the ordinary meaning of "faith" when used to describe something other than religion.
> "western versions of Christianity don't normally allow people doctrinally to be hostile but isn't that attributable to outside influences?"
I would say the opposite -- most of the "hostile" versions of Christianity were/are such because of influences outside of scripture (for example, it became militant after being adopted as a state religion), and most of the shift away from hostility came about as a result of return to scripture (note the significant pacifist movements of the early 1500s, as the printing press was putting Bibles into peoples' hands.)
> "do you consider WBC to be unreasonable?"
Everybody considers WBC to be unreasonable.
More to the point, as I said in the parent, crazies think they're standing on solid ground, whether scientific or religious. The question is not "do they do this because of their faith", but "do they do this because of a reasonable understanding of Christian scripture?" Neither WBC, nor the Ugandan LRA, nor parents who disown children, have reasonable basis in scripture.
It's only in the past hundred years or so (with the rise of Christian Fundamentalism in the 1920s) that "faith" has been used to mean "the opposite of reason" or "believing something without evidence". In ancient religious writings (particularly Christian and Jewish) and in most of religious history, "faith" means acting upon something you know from experience to be true, particularly in the face of adversity. Far from being unreasonable, it can be thought of as the triumph of reason and experience over temporary emotion. This also matches with the ordinary meaning of "faith" when used to describe something other than religion.
> "western versions of Christianity don't normally allow people doctrinally to be hostile but isn't that attributable to outside influences?"
I would say the opposite -- most of the "hostile" versions of Christianity were/are such because of influences outside of scripture (for example, it became militant after being adopted as a state religion), and most of the shift away from hostility came about as a result of return to scripture (note the significant pacifist movements of the early 1500s, as the printing press was putting Bibles into peoples' hands.)
> "do you consider WBC to be unreasonable?"
Everybody considers WBC to be unreasonable.
More to the point, as I said in the parent, crazies think they're standing on solid ground, whether scientific or religious. The question is not "do they do this because of their faith", but "do they do this because of a reasonable understanding of Christian scripture?" Neither WBC, nor the Ugandan LRA, nor parents who disown children, have reasonable basis in scripture.
WBC doesn't have a reasonable understanding of the scripture? By merit of what? For every part of the book they are ignoring aren't there parts that everyone else ignores or comes up with flimsy rationalizations for?
So faith in its current form is unreasonable? Faith instead should be scrutable? Thou shall test the Lord?
So faith in its current form is unreasonable? Faith instead should be scrutable? Thou shall test the Lord?
> "aren't there parts that everyone else ignores or comes up with flimsy rationalizations for?"
One of the things "crazies" and cults do is take single verses or single sentences, decide that they are universal principles written in a literal and strict legal fashion, draw a series of conclusions, and ignore or rationalize away anything that contradicts those conclusions. Often, a single charismatic leader chooses which verses the group follows and which they ignore; this is the case with WBC.
On the other hand, a "reasonable person" will look at how different teachings relate to each other, consider the scope and context of each teaching, and try to build a coherent understanding of the whole. It's an iterated process; a study of passage A might change your understanding of passage B, while exposure to new historical or geographic information might change your understanding of passage C. Serious study, historical research, discussion, and reasoned, cordial disagreement (often of the form "I think you overstate the importance of X" or "I think you misunderstand the symbolism in Y") are characteristic of this approach.
To an outside observer who is not familiar with the whole of scripture, it's easy to slip into the misconception that both groups are making "flimsy rationalizations" or ignoring inconvenient passages. The only way to really clearly see the difference is to become familiar with the source material yourself.
Consider the prior analogy: crazies often believe they are standing on solid scientific ground, as they rationalize and ignore science that contradicts their ideas. To someone with inadequate understanding, it may appear that scientists also rationalize and ignore the crazies' data. With a strong enough scientific background, it becomes clear that the crazies' reasoning is flimsy while the scientists have solid, sensible, principled reasons for rejecting the crazies' conclusions.
> "faith in its current form is unreasonable?"
Faith, in the sense that a certain (rather vocal) Christian minority means it, is anti-reason. Despite your incredulous tone, faith, in its current and traditional form for most of the rest of Christianity, is reasonable -- as I said before, what it means to most of us is "acting upon what past experience has shown us to be true, even though present emotions make it difficult".
Your reference to "testing the Lord" provides a great example of what faith means. In Exodus 14, Moses leads the people to the Red Sea, where God lets them cross and drowns Pharoah's army; then to Marah, with undrinkable water that God shows Moses how to purify; then to the desert, where God gives them bread from heaven. Each step of the way, they whine about impending death. By now, experience has shown them that God is providing for them, so (per my definition above) they should have faith as a result of experience. Yet the next time they come to a place with no water, they again complain about impending death. It is at this point (Exodus 17:2) that Moses says "why do you test the Lord?"
They're not being criticized for unbelief in the unseen, but for unbelief when they should know better. They're not being criticized for wanting to see a sign from God; they're being criticized for challenging God for yet another sign. The expression "do not test the Lord" is always used in this sense -- when someone already has the experience to know better. (When people who do not have such experience ask God for a sign, He often gives it.)
One of the things "crazies" and cults do is take single verses or single sentences, decide that they are universal principles written in a literal and strict legal fashion, draw a series of conclusions, and ignore or rationalize away anything that contradicts those conclusions. Often, a single charismatic leader chooses which verses the group follows and which they ignore; this is the case with WBC.
On the other hand, a "reasonable person" will look at how different teachings relate to each other, consider the scope and context of each teaching, and try to build a coherent understanding of the whole. It's an iterated process; a study of passage A might change your understanding of passage B, while exposure to new historical or geographic information might change your understanding of passage C. Serious study, historical research, discussion, and reasoned, cordial disagreement (often of the form "I think you overstate the importance of X" or "I think you misunderstand the symbolism in Y") are characteristic of this approach.
To an outside observer who is not familiar with the whole of scripture, it's easy to slip into the misconception that both groups are making "flimsy rationalizations" or ignoring inconvenient passages. The only way to really clearly see the difference is to become familiar with the source material yourself.
Consider the prior analogy: crazies often believe they are standing on solid scientific ground, as they rationalize and ignore science that contradicts their ideas. To someone with inadequate understanding, it may appear that scientists also rationalize and ignore the crazies' data. With a strong enough scientific background, it becomes clear that the crazies' reasoning is flimsy while the scientists have solid, sensible, principled reasons for rejecting the crazies' conclusions.
> "faith in its current form is unreasonable?"
Faith, in the sense that a certain (rather vocal) Christian minority means it, is anti-reason. Despite your incredulous tone, faith, in its current and traditional form for most of the rest of Christianity, is reasonable -- as I said before, what it means to most of us is "acting upon what past experience has shown us to be true, even though present emotions make it difficult".
Your reference to "testing the Lord" provides a great example of what faith means. In Exodus 14, Moses leads the people to the Red Sea, where God lets them cross and drowns Pharoah's army; then to Marah, with undrinkable water that God shows Moses how to purify; then to the desert, where God gives them bread from heaven. Each step of the way, they whine about impending death. By now, experience has shown them that God is providing for them, so (per my definition above) they should have faith as a result of experience. Yet the next time they come to a place with no water, they again complain about impending death. It is at this point (Exodus 17:2) that Moses says "why do you test the Lord?"
They're not being criticized for unbelief in the unseen, but for unbelief when they should know better. They're not being criticized for wanting to see a sign from God; they're being criticized for challenging God for yet another sign. The expression "do not test the Lord" is always used in this sense -- when someone already has the experience to know better. (When people who do not have such experience ask God for a sign, He often gives it.)
You know, bible.org has a wonderful online theology course. I often recommend it to people as a primer on how theologians function in an academic context. It's not hostile, it's not an argument or apologetic. Just televised classroom discussions. I think it's interesting and thought-provoking, especially if you think "academic theologian" is a contradiction in terms.
The lectures are a couple hours long, and they're best approached as a course. But they've cut them up into ~15 minute answers to topics. There's a list here:
http://bible.org/article/258-theology-questions-and-answers
You might be particularly interested in numbers 33, 34, and 35 (How do various Christian traditions view truth?).
Number 199, "What does it mean to have faith?" also answers one of your direct questions. The bit from 6:50 is where he starts getting into the actual answer to that.
The lectures are a couple hours long, and they're best approached as a course. But they've cut them up into ~15 minute answers to topics. There's a list here:
http://bible.org/article/258-theology-questions-and-answers
You might be particularly interested in numbers 33, 34, and 35 (How do various Christian traditions view truth?).
Number 199, "What does it mean to have faith?" also answers one of your direct questions. The bit from 6:50 is where he starts getting into the actual answer to that.
[deleted]
>Believing a "Scientist" isn't always harmless either. History is full of people who used this or that pseudoscience to justify their actions
a "Science" that requires believing is by definition not a science, it is a religion.
a "Science" that requires believing is by definition not a science, it is a religion.
> No, I can’t sue anybody because nothing that has been done publicly is in violation of any enforceable law
I'm not specifically familiar with Canadian law, but isn't its legal system descended from and greatly influences by English common law (well, except for Quebec)? There should be a few common law tort causes of action that would work here.
I'm not specifically familiar with Canadian law, but isn't its legal system descended from and greatly influences by English common law (well, except for Quebec)? There should be a few common law tort causes of action that would work here.
This is terrible.
If I were Dave, I would post on a website "Please forgive my brother Anthony. He is mentally ill and unfortunately given the current laws, there is nothing I can do to help him."
If I were Dave, I would post on a website "Please forgive my brother Anthony. He is mentally ill and unfortunately given the current laws, there is nothing I can do to help him."
That is pretty scary.
And people think I'm weird for refusing to be in a Real Relationship (tm).
... or publishing my home address/real name online.
The world is full of crazy people.
... or publishing my home address/real name online.
The world is full of crazy people.
This is the guy's brother doing all this. Being in "virtual hiding" isn't going to stop this kind of thing.