you condemned ken because of what he wrote in his livejournal. you are making judgments about a person you don't know based on some pieces he wrote. you have to consider his motivations in order to judge what he wrote.. these people are telling you that ken intended to be funny and he is not a rapist. you are responding, "no your wrong about his motivations because he is a making threats." you say he's making threats because you judge that his motives are bad. you keep begging the question on this, and you ignore what people are saying. you assume ken's motives without any knowledge. then you dismissed kensui for doing the exact same thing to whitney williams as you are doing to ken!!

could you also calm down the sarcasm and ridicule in your "logical" argument like the angel pictures, wtf?

What is it that's going to be revealed about Ken that would mitigate what he did? Are a thousand pictures of him helping kittens enough to change the real fear felt by people that have to associate with him in their classes, at work, and on the university campus generally?

I'm not ignoring Ken's intentions. I'm quite aware of them, it's just that I don't think they're relevant. That's also what's being said by others in this forum pointing out that intentions of humor, irony, or sarcasm do not change what he did. What I'm concerned with are the impact that his statements had on specific individuals and women as a class. And it's not insignificant that he is reinforcing the values of a culture which already subordinates women through violence. Again, it's not about intentions, it's about impact. The impact on specific individuals is significant enough that I support his being fired from his job (because one of the people he threatened was a co-worker) and removed from his class (because another of the people he threatened was a professor). And, I recognize this is more controvertial, I also support his expulsion from the university because I don't think any woman, these facts having come to light, should have to live in a culture of fear, a culture that Ken is contributing to whether he meant to not. It's a sexual harassment issue, and it's one for the campus at large.

I'm not doing the same thing to kamui, because I'm not calling Ken a spoiled brat or devoid of a brain. All I'm saying is that he helped a public university environment which is already hostile to women become more so. What I'm saying is what he did. He made women at large, and certain women specifically, fear participating in campus life. And these are effects, given the graphic nature of his posts and an epidemic of sexual violence against women, that he should have seen from a mile away.

Ken might have had the best intentions in the world. He might have thought that sexual violence as we know it might be ended in our time. He might have thought he was being funny, and you might agree, but his intentions are not what interest me. What interests me is the impact.

Do you even read anything, seriously. Do you only see what you want to and quote it to twist it around without context. Do you even understand how fallacy is used? The comment above had nothing to do with kens issues of actually getting into trouble (if it did then it would be ad hominem) you just plucked it out like Whitney did to get ken in trouble. See this keeps on happening over and over again. What i was showing is why ken would write these things in the first place in a joking manner (even though a poor choice on his behalf to) because what these people have done is so ridiculous and blind sighted that no wonder she has gotten threats. Ad hominem would be saying something against Miss Williams claim on the threat from his journal. Such as she was drunk when she read it so the issue is null and void.


how is this even a conclusion?
"1. Ms. Williams claims Ken's threats in his livejournal constitute violence against women.
2. Kamui says that Ms. Williams is a spoiled brat without a brain.
3. Therefore, Ken's threats do not constitute violence against women. "
Does anyone else see the loose or nonexistent connection? You gave me the text book answer for ad hominem but it still seems you can only read words and not take what they are actually saying. So don’t argue something that doesn’t need to be argued over. I’ll forgive your misinterpretations and move on.
-kamui