If you're a This Is For Real? Regular and want to see the video, Michael told me to sign up for the seven-day free trial. If you like his stuff, great. Buy a subscription. And while you’re at it, buy one from me, too!
I think one of the most important portions of the discussion was our exchange of views about Parental Alienation (PA). I think it is real but hard to prove. Some PA advocates are doing a good job, but they are drowned out by the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) money that rewards litigants, lawyers, court-appointed professionals, and others from claiming everything that’s wrong in their divorce is domestic violence (DV). I think it actually hurts DV victims.
Michael Volpe had a good point. He said that women might become upset when men start using the legal argument that withheld sex is “coercive control.” But Michael cautions about using terms that are ill-defined.
I agree with him on that point to a certain extent. I agree that “I know it when I see it” is the wrong standard for free speech. (It was said by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart in 1964; Michael and I both whiffed—he said Justice Louis Brandeis, and I said Justice Hugo Black.) It’s also the wrong standard for the legal definitions of “parental alienation” and “coercive control.”
But, I feel that argument fails because it is a form of reductio ad absurdumwhen applied to PA or DV.
British Philosopher Bertrand Russell wrote extensively about the “indefinability of good,” and I believe that sheds some light on the problems we have defining “Parental Alienation” and “Coercive Control”:
One very important consequence of the indefinability of good must be emphasized, namely, the fact that knowledge as to what things exist, have existed, or will exist, can throw absolutely no light upon the question as to what things are good. There might, as far as mere logic goes, be some general proposition to the effect whatever exists, is good, or whatever exists, is bad, or what will exist is better (or worse) than what does exist. But no such general proposition can be proved by considering the meaning of good, and no such general proposition can be arrived at empirically from experience, since we do not know the whole of what does exist, nor yet of what has existed or will exist.
But that can’t be true of PA, coercive control, or DV, particularly when so many have actually experienced it. The argument that these feelings, these sensations are not real can’t be correct. It’s a form of epiphenomenalism, a theory that holds our human actions have no intentions, desires, or volition behind them:
The term “epiphenomenon” was used in medicine in the late nineteenth century as a label for a symptom concurrent with, but not causally contributory to, a disease (an epiphenomenon is thus something like a secondary symptom, a mere afterglow of real phenomena). Accordingly, epiphenomenalism in the philosophy of mind holds that our actions have purely physical causes (neurophysiological changes in the brain, say), while our intention, desire or volition to act does not cause our actions but is itself caused by the physical causes of our actions.
I can’t believe that is true. I can’t believe that human will and desire have nothing to do with action in the physical world. We all know about the stories of 110-pound mothers lifting automobiles to save their children and similar amazing feats motivated by love and the natural inclination of a parent to protect their children. The core themes of the stories we tell our children - all of the historical, religious, cultural, and oral traditions we pass on - are centered around parental love. As I previously wrote:
We see this in history, religion, and popular culture. There is no greater, more natural love than that of a parent for their children. And there is nothing a parent would not do to keep their children safe from harm and abuse, both physical and psychological.
The basis of faith in the Abrahamic religions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam presupposes this fundamental precept of natural law. God asked Abraham to do the unthinkable - to offer his beloved son on the altar of sacrifice. His faith was tested against the most fundamental human commandment - protect thy children.
A central tenet of the Christian religion includes the same paradox of natural law: God’s willingness to offer “His only begotten Son, that those who believe in him may not perish, but have everlasting life.” (John 3:16).
The stories we tell and watch with our children reinforce this narrative. Out of love for his daughter, King Triton agrees to take Ariel’s place as the witch, Ursula’s prisoner, giving up his body, trident, and kingdom in Disney’s The Little Mermaid.
The greatest and most powerful wizard the world has ever known, the evil Lord Voldemort, was defeated by an even more ancient and powerful magic: love. Namely, it was Lily’s parental love for her son, Harry Potter, sacrificing her own life for his, protecting him, and defeating the dark wizard - for a time.
Liam Neeson’s character in Taken shows us that there are virtually no lengths a parent cannot go to that are not morally justified in the protection of their children:
"I don't know who you are. I don't know what you want. If you are looking for ransom I can tell you I don't have money, but what I do have are a very particular set of skills. Skills I have acquired over a very long career. Skills that make me a nightmare for people like you. If you let my daughter go now that'll be the end of it. I will not look for you, I will not pursue you, but if you don't, I will look for you, I will find you and I will kill you."
The list of examples goes on and on in our cultural consciousness.
I cannot believe that Love is not “real.” But is Love subject to a precise, catch-all definition? Of course not. There are many types of Love and many modes and methods. Consider how the Greeks had several words that are encompassed by the term: agape(a profound sacrificial love that transcends and persists regardless of circumstance), philia (brotherly love), and philautia (self-love).
To my mind, clinging to the “indefinability” of the term “Parental Alienation” is the easy way out.
I also discussed a few upcoming articles. One will focus on the story of Parental Alienation Warrior David Weigel and his ongoing battle with a corrupt New York Family Court system.
Now, Justice Dawson won’t let them leave. Reminiscent of a scene from the mafia movie A Bronx Tale, Dawson “locked the doors” to the courtroom to the Weigels.
https://www.silive.com/crime-safety/2021/08/trial-by-combat-lawyer-richard-luthmann-released-from-federal-custody.html