On What is truth and why it is important

The word, namely "truth", nowadays has faded out due to many reasons, but could we put the truth away? I don't think so. I am going to give an account that is arguably more acceptable than others.

Truth is the string that keeps interpersonal relationships at a meaningful level; I mean when I say Persepolis is located in Iran that means if you went to Iran you would find Persepolis there. That is obvious. But in recent decades there have been many schools that insisted on the claim that there are many truths, that everyone holds one

Let's suppose there isn't such a thing as the truth, but truths. Then, one could say Persepolis is in Iraq, not Iran. One who believes in many truths, gets a visa to Iraq, goes there, and travels the whole country, That person couldn't see Persepolis for sure; for "the truth is" Persepolis is located in Iran. I could arguably suppose one may proceed a little further and claim, as we have many truths Persepolis is the same as the Arch of Ctesiphon; therefore, that person sees Persepolis near now Baghdad. No need to explain more that this way how much is unthinkable. In such a situation all human communications collapsed; for, from this point no participants know others' intentions.

Before going further, note it worthy that many truths theories mean no truth; because truth means something real, verifiable, and unique in its essence, as humans have dealt with it from the very beginning. Truth is meaningful when it would be unique.

You may ask why ever on earth people deny the truth and come up with many truths? As many truths theories,  deny the truth, there is a history behind it, from Nietzsche to postmoderns. They all denied the truth on grounds like Christianity used the truth for verifying its claims (Nietzsche), no one has the truth in their hands, even if there is the truth, human beings couldn't grasp it, etc. These grounds are understandable; many of them could be the case, such as no one of homo sapiens could reach pure truthfulness until they are homo sapiens. But does it mean that there is no truth? No, I don't think so.

That problem emerged from certain roots, in which a few important aspects had not been taken into account. Theorizing these philosophical topics by Greeks, Aristotle made a statement about truthfulness and falsity in his book Metaphysics: “To say of what is that it is not, or of what is not that it is, is false, while to say of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not, is true” (Metaphysics, 1011b25). This account, mostly regarded as the correspondence theory of truth, has some deficiency in it as it is. This way of defining truth relates trueness to utterances and statements. It is a deficiency, for, among all statements on one specific object, only one is "true", others all are "false. Here comes the problem: if one admitted that it is not possible for a human being to reach the truth how, the truth as claims correspondent to facts, is helpful? It is not evidently; when no one grasps pure trueness, their utterances do not correspond to the facts. However, it is not the end of the story.

Since this is for common people, accordingly, I want to proceed with common words, not philosophical jargon. I intend to explain the truth and how could we think of it. My account is based on a tradition that started by Martin Heidegger, particularly in his "On Plato's Doctrine of Truth", then continued by Hans-Georg Gadamer, Paul Ricoeur, et al.

Heidegger in his work argued that truth in Greek is "Aletheia", which means disclosure, or revealing. That meant pre-Socratics as things come out to be seen, to be disclosed, and to be revealed from their hiddenness. Heidegger particularly explained Plato, followed by Aristotle, changed it to "correctness of vision", that is to be able to see things correct, following this one could express true utterances. Heidegger was inclined to reverse it to the previous account. An easy-to-understand version is like this:

1. There is a real world out there, that we could make sense of it to some extent;

2. Truth is an adjective for things, not statements, utterances, or beliefs;

3. What makes an utterance true or false, is our connection to things and state of affairs outside of our minds; if it corresponds to a revealing state of affairs, made out of unconcealment of a thing, or based on the disclosure of the object it is true unless it is false.

3. Truth is a relative state, for unconcealment is relative; for A the fact of P was revealed very well and A tried their best to grasp it, so A's utterance is true, compared to B who made the utterance hastily, did not strive at their best.

So to speak, the truth is an objective, concrete thing that lies in things its own selves; we could express it by letting things be revealed, unconcealed to us.

To be more clear, we can exemplify it like this:

I could assess a fact, say a whale, then I come out with this that whale is a fish. Deduce from it that they are fishes, not mammals. It is false because they are mammals. My mistake is that I have not let them be revealed to me, hastily going on an utterance. Vice versa, If I take my time, let them be unconcealed I can know they are mammals. Then, I can say that they are mammals, a true statement. But a physiologist goes farther and could benefit from more unconcealment, that is why the physiologist is closer to the truth of whales compare to me.

This account of truth has many benefits that simultaneously avoid previous defaults and at the same time absorb those defaults to bring a good theory about the truth. 

Copyright © 2022 Arya Younesi

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License

Read More

Speak For Amber Heard; or, A Pre-Tested Road to Doom

To sharpen your imagination, I would like to tell a Persian old anecdote. before do, let it be known that Satan, the same as New Testament, has magical powers, and Pharaoh supposedly claimed himself the god based on Islam. Now the anecdote:

"One day Pharaoh was eating grapes, holding a bunch; Satan came to him and said: could you ever think some be able to make that bunch of grapes to pearls? Pharaoh said decisively: NO. Then Satan made grapes into pearls. Pharaoh shouted: Such a master who you are! Satan slapped his neck, and said: in the kingdom of God did not accept my slavery; how you claim yourself as god with such foolishness!" (Jwamee al-Hikayat by Oofi)

This anecdote is of very telling about the behavior of #metoo cyberwarrior (using deliberately as we see). Mostly I mean after centuries of men's neglecting, ignoring, rejecting, underestimating, and any kind of measures to deprive women of fairness and justice, they have come to realize that was in vain. Those kinds of behaviors are abandoned by now, while MeToo cyberwarriors are going to revive the same on their side. Surprisingly, a great portion of literature against it is provided by feminists. So to speak, if such deeds had had benefits, men would not have left them behind.

Those days were tremendous due to the scale of information brought to the court, and accordingly to the media. On 18&19th may, Heard team bring witnesses to the stand: a friend, her sister, and Adam Waldman, Depp's attorney back then. These two days were outstanding: the first day was just spending time on nothing; but the second was strange, funny, and noticeable. #AdamWaldman was Depp's attorney before, also one who titled by #Heard as "short" appropriately, on March 2021. Waldman's testimony was damaging for Heard case; because as she bring him, Waldman favored Depp, undermined Heard, and accuse her claims as false. Such testimony was more about fun. Heard and her team's calculations were very wrong. As my aim is not about the trial, I'd better conclude by saying: that the first two witnesses to Heard weren't even close to helping judgment, more than that Waldman's testimony was ruining Heard. Frankly, at this point, Heard seemed to be done.

I had brought on the attacks on the importance of pieces of evidence mostly advanced by Dr. #CharlotteProudman who unexpectedly is a barrister; although this insight that we better not rely on pieces of evidence had said before implicitly, pronouncing it loudly and explicitly took place after passing a few days of the trial when Depp team provided enough amount of pieces of evidence on his side to, at least, convince public opinion; it has something to tell about the MeToo cyberwarriors: when a situation is not in favor of you just deny the situation, simply. A related question would be: but what about justice? They might respond: it is a male-made thing that we do not affirm; the logic overwhelmingly insane. Proudman's denying pieces of evidence, was one instance, thus relying on it did not seem to justify it. However, after Waldman testify they revealed their basic morals.

The first step to warm up the MeToo campaign after the chaos created by Waldman came from the Observer, owned by The Guardian, both could be placed on the center-left in the political spectrum. A newspaper, as well as the owner The Guardian, which is famous for publishing biased articles in favor of activists, employs many media tricks to convince the readers. The article by Martha Gill titled "#MeToo is over if we don’t listen to ‘imperfect victims’ like Amber Heard", is very telling.

In the headline, it is revealed that the case is about holding #MeToo, not Amber Heard. The subtitle statement is even more interesting one part "when even young women join the actor's MALE TORMENTORs" means although the trial wasn't closed, Observer and Guardian came out with a verdict. The logic supposedly is to condemn "male tormentors", I could not guess the plurality of "tormentors" referring to whom exactly, perhaps whoever takes the "male" side, as it is indicated: "Heard’s tormentors, many of them young women, do not seem to see themselves as anti-feminist". The writer would not lose this good opportunity to scorn women, as well: "They [young women] believe women, of course – just not this one". It has two-fold scorn: one fold young women who are tormentors, and, the second fold is implicitly conveyed when she named just "young women", how about "not young women", then? Possibly calling them is in vain, no hope.

Apparently, on the writer's beliefs, all should avoid "male", taking back the "woman" side without any other concern about truth, reality, facts, pieces of evidence, and "justice". I said justice, it will get perplexing when one looks at the second part of the subtitle: "ideas of justice soon begin to unravel". To be frank, I can't interpret the phrase, since even understand this; just I can say: that regarding this I realized that I have been wrong in my life because there are not men and women, but there are males and women. I wish Schleiermacher was alive, perhaps he could have told us something. When one continues reading the paper, finds out it is an announcement which wrongly published as "opinion". Reference to unraveling justice in the subtitle makes me very happy to see how people love justice, including the writer.

An interesting point of the article is how the writer justified her position and justice. In two or three lines she said a few words on facts, naming all they have on Depp with details, but when it comes to Amber heard she tells us:

"On his side are two facts that seem clear. Heard promised to donate her entire divorce settlement to charity, and didn’t. There is a recording in which she admits to hitting Depp."

Other pieces of evidence provided to the court and public opinion are not clear in her eyes. To use the writer's words, the #MeToo judiciary "begins to unravel" by this, especially when it is noted that she says only two facts are clear, one is Heard pledge and has not donated; no big deal! No big deal.

when I read that for the first time I got furious at such an unjust, reckless saying. Well, I have some other clear facts for the writer here. The fact is not just she pledged and has not donated, which is by itself a bad point, but rather she lied under oath about it in the UK; could it be informative that she not only did not donate but lied about it? Lying under oath will deny a person's honesty and truthfulness. If she is so cold-blooded in lying even under oath, how could one trust her? A question to #MeToo judges. Furthermore, in the court Heard tried to cover her lie, even by telling that she doesn't know the meaning of "pledge" and "donate" to the amount that Depp's attorney had to add "paid" to donate.

The other "clear" fact is that Heard on a recording admitted once she "hitted" her ex-husband. In the recording, an argument took place in which the male part says he got punched, and the young woman says she just hit him. Male says if so, then why does the young woman do it with closed fingers? While un the recording we hear two speakers, just one is clear and it is a young woman's.

I'm not sure why lying about Australian laws, many recordings in which the young woman appeared harsh and aggressive, and a few testimonies who accused her to be the abuser are not clear.

This article was published on 22 May, two days after the mess of 18&19 May. It was a counteract to reduce consequences, undermining the weight of what happened. It was followed by a campaign on the social media battlefield by many other cyber warriors who tweets about it; the reason was that they all bet on Heard for #MeToo, thus she should be backed anyway, otherwise they lose.

I do not know how to put it; because some of the contents are childish. But let's give it a try. It may be better to start with Dr. Charlotte Proudman, apparently the most powerful speaker of the group with many contradictions with herself and huge reliance on being an "actual doctor". After numerous tweets to denounce supporters of Depp on social media, she suddenly tweets this:

      

Surprisingly, when the number of favorite hashtags surpasses the rival, it tells something, while no number could speak for Depp. If there any logical reasoning had been used, it would have been new nonstandard logic She, now and then, finds it helpful to hit out at tweeters, depicting them as violent, aggressive, or misogynists:

           

That is strange that she referred to being an "actual doctor"; first, although it is not clear what was an incident (s) referred to, whenever people do not comment they usually make fun of doctors by mockeries or putting "dr" in quotations to imply it is just a title, etc. Why should one find it harassing? Second, if she is trying to remind people that she is a "doctor", it is nonsense. For it does not guarantee correctness. However, as she even uses "dr." in her username, it might imply that she finds it very important. It is for sure not. Furthermore, a barrister who denied evidence importance must be expected a few mockeries on her contradictory position on being a barrister and throw away pieces of evidence. Therefore, this is not the case:

          

Dr. Proudman's response is confusing, at best, contradictory to common sense. She always talks, writes, denies, and calls for reform in UK courts; while here she asserted that the UK court verdict is for sure. Question: if UK courts are not very good at justice, especially in domestic violence, thus how the UK court judgment could be decisive in this case?

The fastest to tweet and furious in insult whoever is doubtful about the truthfulness of Amber Heard, is her friend, #EveBarlow, who introduces herself as a journalist, while no one knows about her possible education and degree, nor about journalistic experience and expertise. Anyway, her tweeting activity is interesting. On 18&19 May, when her friend was not in a good position, she deny the weight of proof Let us see a few:

 

These are after Waldman's testimony, in which they are trying to bold that if Heard loose, #MeToo would be dead. They are wrong about it because it is dead already after their fairness and justice are revealed. While in the third tweet she emphasized that the "burden of proof" is not important, but what the female part says should be, as they articulate; we might think this an honest opinion, although not a good one, but be their logic of justice, but it is not an honest, truthful saying. Since after Heard's team bring two experts who denied Depp's account, one argued implicitly, that his drug and alcohol abuse make him an abuser. Following that Barlow's tweeter blew up with the importance of the burden of proof. suddenly she found out that proof and evidence are important:

           

As it is obvious, the importance of evidence and heaviness of proof of burden relies on which one could benefit the female part. I am not going to bring on how strong Barlow strived to show that what convinced public opinion is Depp's fans' efforts, just as Proudman when the number is bigger than rivals', it did not torture, or bots, or blind support, but it is seeing the right side:

       

Thus, after retweeting above mentioned Proudman's tweet, she just like her, could enjoy the hashtag number.

Here I just wanted to show that a lot of literature created by MeToo cyberwarriors are not their real beliefs, rather they are more creative and flexible about things; whenever pieces of evidence, proof, or anything else do not serve female part, should be denied, simply and decisively. If new important proofs and pieces of evidence find then things should be reversed. That is the justice procedure of the MeToo court, which explains the "believe women" motto very well.

This kind of jurisprudence makes easy for MeToo warrior to denounce all opposing, what's needed is accusing to: "they are #misogynist". But is not the very way that feminists used to accuse men of it in such a situations? It is. End of story.

Sources: Fist publication on My linkedIn Newsletter page

Note: feminism in our time is not all about women's rights, what you read is not supposed to undermine, underestimate, underrate women's rights, security, wellbeing, equality, but it aims to promote it along with the same for male victims without destroying justice.

© Copyright 2022 Arya Younesi

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License

Read More

A Case For Feminism

Links to posts on Feminism

Here I linked all posts on Feminism and it will be updated after publishing new posts. 

Note: feminism in our time is not all about women's rights, what you read is not supposed to undermine, underestimate, or underrate women's rights, security, wellbeing, or equality, but it aims to promote it along with the same for male victims without destroying justice.

A. Depp vs. Heard trial

As Amber Heard's allegations about Johnny Depp began and the UK court rejected the case, another public allegation was published in Washington Post. Depp this time sued Amber Heard; unlike the UK case, after starting of the trial, which was public, evidence spread through cyberspace. As pieces of evidence were important, it caused public attention and feminists severely reacted. It was a good case for assessing feminists' praxis and theory; it was not good at all. Here you can find a few opinions:

1. How and Why Depp vs. Heard Trial Stimulate Public Sphere: An Outline

2. The slogan "Believe women"​ and Demoralizing

3. David Spiegel's Testimony Was a Real Failure

4.Speak For Amber Heard; or, A Pre-Tested Road to Doom 

 

© Copyright 2022 Arya Younesi

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License

Read More

 

Disclaimer

This disclaimer (“Disclaimer”) sets forth the general guidelines, disclosures, and terms of your use of the aycontemplatings.blogspot.com blog, and any of its related texts and material. This Disclaimer is a legally binding agreement between me, the author of contents, and user(s)/you. If you are entering into this agreement on behalf of a business or other legal entity, you represent that you have the authority to bind such entity to this agreement, in which case the terms “User”, “you” or “your” shall refer to such entity. If you do not have such authority, or if you do not agree with the terms of this agreement, you must not accept this agreement and may not access and use the Website and Services. By accessing and using the Website and Services, you acknowledge that you have read, understood, and agree to be bound by the terms of this Disclaimer. You acknowledge that this Disclaimer is a contract between you and the Operator, even though it is electronic and is not physically signed by you, and it governs your use of the Website and Services.

Representation

Any views or opinions represented on the Website are personal and belong solely to the writer, Arya Younesi, and do not represent those of people, institutions, or organizations that the Writer may or may not be associated with in professional or personal capacity unless explicitly stated. Any views or opinions are not intended to malign any religion, ethnic group, club, organization, company, or individual; the only reason certain names might mention is for academic purposes 

Content and postings

You may print or copy any part of the blog for your personal or non-commercial or research work use under the terms of use Creative Commons Licence cc by-nc-nd 4.0 license.  

Indemnification and warranties

While we have made every attempt to ensure that the information contained on the Website is correct, the Operator is not responsible for any errors or omissions, or for the results obtained from the use of this information. All information on the Website is provided “as is”, with no guarantee of completeness, accuracy, timeliness or of the results obtained from the use of this information, and without warranty of any kind, express or implied. In no event will the Operator be liable to you or anyone else for any decision made or action taken in reliance on the information on the Website, or for any consequential, special or similar damages, even if advised of the possibility of such damages. Information on the Website is for general information purposes only and is not intended to provide any type of professional advice. Please seek professional assistance should you require it. Information contained on the Website are subject to change at any time and without warning.

Changes and amendments

We reserve the right to modify this Disclaimer or its terms related to the Website and Services at any time at our discretion. When we do, we will revise the updated date at the bottom of this page. We may also provide notice to you in other ways at our discretion, such as through the contact information you have provided.

An updated version of this Disclaimer will be effective immediately upon the posting of the revised Disclaimer unless otherwise specified. Your continued use of the Website and Services after the effective date of the revised Disclaimer (or such other act specified at that time) will constitute your consent to those changes.

Acceptance of this disclaimer

You acknowledge that you have read this Disclaimer and agree to all its terms and conditions. By accessing and using the Website and Services you agree to be bound by this Disclaimer. If you do not agree to abide by the terms of this Disclaimer, you are not authorized to access or use the Website and Services. This disclaimer was created with the disclaimer generator.

Terms of Use: Creative Commons

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License

please in case of use in research/writing refer to these terms.

Contacting Me

If you have any questions, suggestions, concerns, or complaints regarding this Disclaimer, we encourage you to contact us using the details below:

Follow @AryaYounesi

linkedin

Academia

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2751-9980

E-mail: aryauonesy1367@gmail.com

This document was last updated on May 22, 2022

Read More

About

 About the Blog and Author

LinkedIn Account 

Academia 

Follow @AryaYounesi 

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2751-9980

Also you can read my posts on LinkedIn newsletter and Substack:

Substack

LinkedIn Newsletter 

Note about contents on feminism: feminism in our time is not all about women's rights, what you read is not supposed to undermine, underestimate, underrate women's rights, security, wellbeing, equality, but it aims to promote it along with the same for male victims without destroying justice.

Read More

The Motto "Believe women"​ IS Demoralizing

As the Johnny Depp vs. Amber heard, Johnny Depp vs. Amber Heard trial goes on it reveals many things; it's not just a celebrity fight, it's related to our justice system, our way of judgment, our dealing with abuse issues, and to a few certain movements and hashtags.

things have changed since a month ago. new hashtags built up, e.g #mentoo, we've seen how science is vulnerable when it comes to gender-biased professional opinions, like Dawn Hughes's testimony who used male pronouns for abusers & females for victims.

or neglecting pieces of evidence by attorneys, judicature & barristers, like the barrister Charlotte Proudman who denied or underestimated the role of pieces of evidence, saying frequently that people defend Depp blindly due to him is a man.

I'm pursuing the trial, it's very helpful to understand our situation.

Johnny Depp's character made it easier to believe Heard's allegations; Depp is weird, somehow introverted & conservative, with a bizarre style of Putting rings, having tattoos all over the body, a typical appearance for being accused. while Heard has a girlish, baby, beautiful face, a suitable portrait of an innocent woman who faced domestic violence. that was what happened.

the Sun called him a "wife-beater" and brought allegations to public opinion once again in 2018. Depp sued Sun for libel but the UK court rejected Depp's claim and said the allegations were substantially true. unsurprisingly other media helped Heard strongly.

when Heard pledged whole her 7m$ divorce settlement to charity, gained lovely fame among people, and called herself an activist & outspoken about sexual assault and abuse. that amount hadn't satisfied her greed for fame, thus she stepped into the fight against DV & sexual abuse to the extent that ACLU, who haven't even got Heard's pledged money except for 20% by proxy, made her write an op-ed article published by Washington Post on domestic abuse calling herself a survivor. long story short, Depp's reputation was destroyed totally, again; but it's just the preface, I'm going to another area: media & revolutionary feminists reactions.

when it was some leaked vague news that the case would make its way to the court the revolutionary feminists' army start large-scale reportage implicitly in favor of Heard. this point was a good point to assess revolutionary feminists' conscience & morality in practice. as one could predict, they strongly deny any possibility of Heard's allegations being false. seemingly another trial was on no ground except for "deeply entrenched misogyny is in our society", as Dr. Charlotte Proudman, a barrister, wrote in the attached opinion to Independent, calling people "blindly" support Depp's defamation case, no more no less.

                            

the reason for why she denied Depp: it proved by the Sun in a Uk court that those allegations were true. let's have this in mind, we assess the honesty of these claims.

Let's look at the first impressions & reception, then we'll see two psychologists' testimony briefly, one of which suffers from a gender-biased attitude. "revolutionary feminists" analysis would be in the next post.

in the very beginning, due to the publicity of the trial, people could have watched it. a few important recording was played in which Amber Heard's innocent portrait was wiped out, appeared as a woman who could fight back very well; in some recording, she was the attacker, either verbally or physically, particularly in one instance she admitted that had hit Depp, while Depp complaining about a close finger, namely fist, it's punching, not just hitting; the argument left undecided in the recording. then there was early testimony that affirm recordings.

I'd like to confess that I was born to a patriarchal family, well understand masculinity & (asexual) male violence. accordingly, while I'm a man who doesn't deny his masculinity, in case of allegations usually take the female side until there would be a good reason to abandon this primitive judgment. since there were new, important pieces of evidence, in this case, I had to change my side as my personal view. frankly, I was neither the judge nor juror; as well as, I had not had all pieces of evidence.

At this crucial point, two forensic psychologists gave professional opinions to the court: Dr. Shannon Curry on Depp's side and Dr. Dawn Hughes for Heard. Curry, on Depp's side, testified that Heard's account isn't fit the criteria she fabricated; Curry pointed out Heard exaggerates about symptoms and tests say fabricating is more likely.

after her, Dawn Hughes gave opinions in which something strange happened; she not only gave a gender-biased opinion but also deliberately misinterpreted pieces of evidence & information. for instance, she implicitly denied female ability for abusing male victims, on the ground that men have bigger size, thus female hostility towards men couldn't be dangerous essentially, related to physical features. additionally, she used female pronouns for victims and males for abusers. I have written a thread on my Twitter account about her violation of the psychological code of ethics. continuing this way of thinking, Hughes even tried to underestimate and undermine important information, such as when a recording played in which Heard admitted that she had hit Depp; Hughes said "several times" with a tone to convey it wasn't a big deal, just rarely it happened, added she couldn't have been real threatening to him. this was the first time that gender-biased opinion stepped into the case.

4th post; following the previous post, I'm not inclined to give weight to Heard's attorney's comments on Curry, Depp's psychologist speaker, that she isn't board-certified, such comments aren't for real, but rather to undermine another side.

from this point, things became interesting & frightening at the same time. revolutionary feminists started their campaign, spreading comments on social media, along with conventional media. a flood of statements made their way into the public sphere, telling people this trial will jeopardize women's willingness to speak out, oppressed them to be silent, and prevent them from going to courts; as they argued, because they would think even if they win the first court battle, men sue back, so on.

these reasons came from a few certain sources, who are Amber Heard's friends. their efforts don't have to be based on friendship, it's mostly on a kind of strict feminism, which Charlotte Proudman calls revolutionary feminism; a kind of feminism that seeks a revolution in masculine male-made jurisdiction, society holding misogyny tight.

but after the trial began, defending such a position became very hard, and baseless, due to the facts that revealed Heard's ability to be hostile toward Depp, & more noteworthy, that turned out that she hadn't donated her pledged divorce settlement money to charities, while she told under oath in the UK court that she donated; her trying to come up with something was in vain, said she used "pledge" and "donate" synonymously. furthermore, it was shown that ACLU, to name one, encouraged & helped her in writing and publishing the op-ed article. these events weaken her con vincibility severely. accordingly, the facts and pieces of evidence were in her favor.

revolutionary feminists from now on had to decide whether they continue their support or step aside for mentioned things; they decided on the first option. however, there was a vital need for a new strategy. one important speaker was Dr. Charlotte Proudman who took the lead, outlined a new strategy to undermine evidence-based decisions, emphasized more underlying strong misogyny, interpreted the trial as a scene orchestrated by Johnny Depp, pointing out social media content on Heard especially those which weren't so acceptable, etc.

                                         

in a tweet, she wrote "Depp is the definition of masculinity. Every man wanted to be him." as if overcoming Johnny Depp is to overcome the definition of masculinity, the archetype of men, someone who all men want to be like, the personality of Depp as a human being, as a husband, as father didn't take into account. the priority should be defeating him decisively.

Proudman, who is a barrister holding doctorate in law, during an interview said: " evidence has nothing to do with this case" headed for old school misogyny conspiracy theory.

that saying from one who already serves justice in courts was unbelievable.

as it was explained, Dr. C. Proudman led the way, the revolutionary feminists, followed her very well. that wasn't well enough in dealing with the situation, so they flagged up a few harsh social media created by fans which weren't acceptable since they made fun of cryings or showed rudery. the #Guardian and Independent always were waiting for a word to publish it hastily without any concerns about consequences.

I will end narrate here to express a few points.

regarding Dr. Hughes's testimony, it not only denies any possibility for men to be victims of abuse, which is very dangerous but also undermine science neutrality guideline, making science a tool to overcome for one's benefit, no matter of truth. no need to mention breaking the professional code of ethics.

besides, revolutionary feminists told us about the danger of jeopardizing future female victims of speaking out, but they weren't able to prove it. always have been false allegations there; it's obvious. furthermore, any human being on earth understands lies and false statements; we know that having that ability. that's why humans try to lay judiciary systems down, strengthen them for centuries; to make them efficient to the extent that they detect false allegations from true ones precisely. thus, unfolding one certain case after providing a large number of new pieces of evidence, how could jeopardize women's dare to prosecute abuse?

in addition, while mentioned opinion is under serious doubt, it is clear that neglecting pieces of evidence, for the "believe women" rule, will assure male victims that they haven't any chance in trials even if they have enough pieces of evidence for the defense.

one might think this kind of feminism, the revolutionary, is replacing misogyny with misandry, whose damage isn't lesser. such consideration is scary; it may weaken our integrity, reduce justice enforcement, & demoralize people.

here, my goal was to take one side into account, more should be said about media coverage & interventions.

finally, unchangeable insistent on supporting one case and presenting her as the symbol of all women is incomprehensible, no need to indicate this could both fade women's rights away and even demolish the revolutionary feminism essentially. adopting such a venture increases the likelihood of the supposition that they're acting by irrational attitude, not on common sense.

it was published first in My LinkedIn Newsletter. 

Note: feminism in our time is not all about women's rights, what you read is not supposed to undermine, underestimate, or underrate women's rights, security, wellbeing, or equality, but it aims to promote it along with the same for male victims without destroying justice.

 

© Copyright 2022 Arya Younesi

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License

Read More

David Spiegel's Testimony Was a Real Failure

Arya Younesi 

Note: this post is for non-experts, accordingly it is in a clear style without needed academic details.

It would be helpful to say I do not write to have Johnny Depp, the actor the celebrity, my concern has two dimensions: one, a human, father, and husband, is being sacrificed by activists who labeled Amber Heard as a "survivor" now they do not accept their advertised, branded face be abuser, not a survivor; two, what is going on could happen to any of us, when we seek justice in the court, the abuser find a couple of unethical, negligent experts to accuse us. 

Dr. David Spiegel's Testimony as a psychiatrist was a failure in its literal meaning; he passed many rules and boundaries that should not have been passed by scientists. Meanwhile, it is interesting that no one from the psychiatry field denounces such scientific testimony as "abuse". As he is an expert on abuse, I suggest we see what is "science abuse"? 

First of all, he testified in a way that understands by a large number of listeners that johnny Depp's drug and alcohol abuse caused domestic violence. However, now and then, he mentioned percentages or pronounce words to imply the likelihood of his sayings, but it is clear that he take the stand to accuse Johnny Depp of abuse. But I believe he knows that most of what he said was in vain. 

I say that David Spiegel has abused science because science is not about certainty. Science gives us insights into a big number of cases. That is the first notion in social sciences; For example, suppose a psychiatrist conducted research on sexual abuse, and turned out that 70% of abusers suffer from drug abuse. To this point, if the research was a good one, the example was big enough to represent all human beings, the method was right and valid and interpretations make sense, then we can say for any given group of abusers with 100 members there is a chance to find 70 of them being also drug abusers. No more than. 

But 70% is a big number, thus can we conclude that drug abuse is the cause of sexual abuse? Based on the research it just "could" be the case; why? Because we have 30%, 30 cases in every 100, that are sexual abusers but they are not drug abusers. If something would be a cause it should every time and always create the effect, except for rare conditions that prevent effects. So if bipolar disorder is the cause of periodic manic, it should cause periodic manic in more than, let's say, 95%. 5% would be for rare cases for example. 

In the case of the abusers' example, no one could say drug abuse cause sexual abuse. first, it is just about probabilities and likelihood; second, when given drug abusers that at the same time also committed intimidating partner violations, be under study a psychiatrist could relate those two based on previous studies. But if we just know, that a certain person was a drug abuser, that is not possible to deduce that she or he was a sexual abuser too, a simple fact that undergraduate a student knows. I'm going to the next point which is the absence of distinguishing causation from correlation.

In the second place, Spiegel's Testimony was an obvious failure in science due to his negligence of "correlation". Causation and correlation have many similarities which could confuse observers. I will explain it in an easy-to-understand way. By definition, causation is the relationship between a cause and an effect in which the cause created (produced/ bring about) another thing called the effect. Correlation is a mutual connection between two things that usually appeared side by side; such as flu and runny nose, as well as, between fever and runny nose. Generally speaking, although causation is a kind of correlation because cause and effect always appeared at a time, every correlation is not causation, too. For instance, fever and runny nose correlate, perhaps more than 90%, but neither fever cause runny nose nor runny nose causes fever; the virus which is responsible for Flu (influenza) causes both fever and runny nose. Another example, is always thunderbolt and thunder are seen together, first thunderbolt then thunder, but they are not causing and effect, they are in correlation. The cause for both is something else: electric discharge between the atmosphere and ground which causes both thunderbolt (lightning) and thunder (loud sound). 

Now let's see what is the problem in Spiegel's mind. He related sexual abuse, precisely IPV, to abusing substances, drugs, opiates, and alcohol, on the ground that they have unstable moods, impair judgment, cause forgetting, etc. He added that a big number of his clients have these problems, seemingly he was making the point that he knows what he says. Suppose always drug and alcohol misuse and abuse could be seen together, even let's say in 80% of cases. In such a supposition no one could say drug abuse cause IPV; because it should be studied if one is the cause of another one, namely, the correlation possibility would be rejected with great certainty. It is necessary because maybe there is a hidden psychological disorder in the person that pushes them into abusing drugs, and that very disorder makes an inclination in the person to commit IPV. 

Furthermore, if drug abuse is always with the sexual abuser, how could Dr. Spiegel know that sexual abuse is not the cause of drug abuse? He said drug mixing and abusing impair judgment and cause sexual abuse, or help the person to commit IPV. But let's suppose, as a layman, that when someone committed sexual abuse against a partner, that crime bothers the abuser when the person thinks about it, got judgemental about her/his personality, and so on; thus, to forgot about it gradually takes drugs, alcohol, mixing them. It could be a possibility. 

To conclude, the most powerful reason for refuting Spiegel's testimony is that what he said was even from a psychiatric viewpoint very hard to believe. Spiegel stated that mixing opiate with alcohol, which should not be mixed impairs judgment, then the person could not judge between good and bad, as in normal time can; so far is good. But the problem is that mixing opiate with alcohol not only impairs judgment but also weakens strength in the person. When one takes drugs and opiates or opioids and alcohol together, judgment impairment is accompanied by sedation, hard breathing, respiratory failure, or even death (In the end a few scientific materials are linked). Question to Dr. Spiegel: if Depp's co-use of alcohol and opioids and other drugs was at a level that impaired his judgment, how much is it possible for him to tear up a phone, injured his hand, despite that committing domestic violence in which he penetrated a bottle to the vagina of a young, sober, healthy woman? Doest possible that mixing those did not cause sedation, breathing problems, and respiratory problems? Just should it be judgment impairment and necessary end up in IPV? Please give it another try. 

Here I just explained the core reasoning of the testimony, in another one I should give some time to violating the psychological code of ethics.

For effects of mixing opioids with alcohol any simple search in scientific databases bring on much research, but for naming two reliable sources see:

First 

Second

 

© Copyright 2022 Arya Younesi

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License

Read More

How and Why Depp vs. Heard Trial Stimulated Public Sphere: An Outline

Arya Younesi

 

As a first impression, we may say: "fine! That's a celebrity thing; none of our business" heading back to something supposedly more important. It could be a good strategy, nonetheless, the reason is not valid. As a matter of fact, celebrities needed to be chased very passionately by fans and public opinions; it is the logic of fame that is the core of being a celebrity. From time to time when a celebrity feels that public opinion forgets her/him, intuited the necessity of immediate resolution; when there is no good ground to lay a relatively attractive topic they often insanely bring on a catchy, insane subject to capture news titles. Even when other ways failed, they anonymously leaked private, sexual, meaningless videotape to invade yellow media and social media contents. Such a boiling serves well to fame, although it will be forgotten soon. The public sphere, particularly more serious opinions, usually would not participate in, and should not. Having in mind this particular type, some situations appear similar to what I just mentioned while in reality, they are not shallow, but rather of great priorities. Distinguishing between these two kind is difficult but important. Since these cases affect society, We should know when to back off and when to step in. It is noteworthy that in the political realm similar events occurred which need to be dealt with likewise.

One interesting case of an event that, at first not seen as serious, was the Dreyfus Affair in France, which started in 1894 and lasted for nearly 12 years of intense controversies among the French, from common citizens to writers and politicians. Once upon a time in 1894, a case of allegedly selling military information to Germans was revealed to French military counterintelligence. First, in 1894 captain Alfred Dreyfus was accused and then convicted. He was a Jew, which make him very delicious for active anti-Semitic groups, employed La Libre Parole newspaper as the principal organ, back then; not only being Jew expose him to hasty allegations, but the anti-Semitic groups saw him as a convincing basis to accuse all French Jews, profiling them as disloyal, finally take them down. At first, except for Dreyfus's relatives and close people, no one showed suspicion, doubt, or query on the validity of their conviction; perhaps the only side which took his Jewish background of him into serious account was anti-Semitics. On the opposite side, no one said that he was accused just because of his Judaism. After almost three years things have been changed; a counterintelligence officer recognized the handwriting of another suspect, who was in a line of suspicion with Dreyfus, on sold documents to Germans. He had been on the list from the very beginning but the French army alleged Dreyfus, evidently on cognitive bias. To make a long story short, new information along with case bases from the start, inflamed the public sphere in France dividing it into two campaigns, Dreyfus on the face of it anti-Semitism laid beneath. The tension got all social units onto the battlefield, to the extent that well-known novelist, Emile Zola wrote an open letter titled "I accuse", whose consequences were encouraging citizens largely to take a side as well as one year in prison for Zola himself due to "libel". Dreyfus Affair revives basic rights, weaken religious, and racial discrimination, sharpen trial and improve judgment accuracy.

A case like Dreyfus Affair proves the importance of certain ostensibly trivial instances that bear a significant, blurred value underneath. One could say Johnny Depp's case against ex-wife Amber Heard in one way or another represent similarities to Dreyfus Affair; not only based on vast, intense debates around it but rather according on value fight between different adherents and parties which see their future in it.

So to speak, by now almost all forgot about who is the plaintiff and who is the defendant, one sees herself/himself on one side as if it is their own trial. What strongly drew attention to the case is the exchange of severe arguments between a handful of parties. On one side fourth-wave feminists, or as some prefer revolutionary feminism, are positioned. Those who mostly seek to overthrow allegedly masculine way of thinking and values, harshly looking for remaining "misogyny" under skins of society; by the advent of the MeToo movement, mostly known with speak out publicly, bringing sexual discriminations, assaults and harassments to the eyes, followed by narratives and hashtags on social media, organize a powerful social; on a different position is a group of conservatives who are old enemies to all four waves of feminism, regarding the facts they're not mainly involved due to engagement of other powerful groups who are in the field; a large numerous group is fans of either side of two celebrities who are strongly confronting opposite side, sometimes extend the debate to non-fan parties; and finally, a small number of people who do not belong to any of mentioned parties, calling for justice, accuracy, reducing any kind of discrimination. For transparency and fairness to readers, I'd like to locate myself as the last party that defines itself by seeking justice, objectivity, and evidence-oriented decision. From now on I am going to give up neutral style writing; because I want to put myself on the same level as those I am going to criticize.

As it was said, practically conservatives could be left out; the fans army to both sides mostly employ terms, reason, and arguments prepared by the first unit, 4th wave feminists on one side, and the last unit, who call for justice and accuracy for all.

The argument between these two is based on some values with which they are not in agreement. On the feminist side, values centered on the "believe women" motto which encapsulates most of their doctrines. By "believe women" they want to convey the fact that "usually" or "mostly" judiciary systems and routines favor men, pushing women back; for instance, they say, in the female winner trial, which they claim is rare, male side bring the case on, again and again, until he makes the female defendant penniless, exhausting her money support. Another thing they point to is male misuse of "masculine" laws and procedures, in which there is a lot of emphases are on pieces of evidence, as they say, due to the nature of violence happening, prepare convincing pieces of evidence for the courts, judges, and jury is very difficult, if not near impossible. A few figures of the thinkers' wing go farther than saying truth-telling is masculine, not benefit women overall. Briefly, they think of a kind of revolution in culture, laws, jurisprudence regulations, and values.

In domestic violence cases, their strategy is to believe women; meaning in case of lacking pieces of evidence, or not able to convince judges or juries this fact should not result in rejecting the case or letting the man take advantage.

I, for one, find these denials not fruitful, even rather dangerous venture into new different unjust situations as unacceptable as those they deny. These measures, if implemented, would have made male victims exposed to any false allegation, in an indefensible trial in which the man has the least, or no chance to serve justly. On the other hand, this problem did not leave us with only one option, namely revolution; why do not we have a reform option? A practical, efficient way in which benefits would be maximized while producing no major new problem; if a few problems popped out we can suppose a good resolution since we are dealing with a familiar system.

Deception, often in terms of lies, is a human ability; it is a powerful, fatal weapon in a society in which truthfulness is a value and rule for the majority of its members. We are committed to truth and veracity; prima facie is a canonical way by which we conduct our judgment and acts. In such a society overlooking deception, possibility makes the whole judiciary a certain failure.

Afterward, it is not clear if these walks of reasoning did not replace misogyny with misandry.

So far I explained the outline related to points they put on the table. To this point, it could make us worry about the future. But there is more, in a different kind with what has been said. To this point we lay out reflective topics, while a couple of 4th waves, revolutionary, feminists day by day get more radical, take strategies which if not reckless, are not in full awareness of consequences.

In recent days, a lot of short or long articles published in media and newspapers are to an extent worrying; at the same time, following up and downs in the trial the views and opinions posted on cyberspace, not worrying, but frightening, as it became a little harsh and has been tried to misinterpreted pieces of evidence or overlook or ignore then.

a simple resolution to money exhaustion. That would be solved, for example by founding a financial institute to pay for female victims who are in need; if one found it difficult to do, then a revolution, that is overthrowing the whole system is more difficult. For such a problem no need to be revolutionary, which seems reckless.

This issue will be addressed in the next opinion.

 

© Copyright 2022 Arya Younesi

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License

Read More