You mean when she used sodium pentathol to obtain confessions (Which are inadmissible in court for a reason), tried to slice Alison’s throat just to see if she could (accompanied by a litany of deliberately nasty comments denying both Alison’s very humanity and femininity), and ultimately declared she has no problems with murdering an innocent person because she’s “not afraid to make a mistake?”

Her “research” is spotty, her methodology is flawed, and her strategy is beyond counterproductive (if she wanted to do something, she should be using her powers to expose conspiracies and bring evidence to light. How many hard drives could she have handed over to the equivalent of Wikileaks by now, exposing the true intentions of corrupt judges and attorneys, of college administrators, etc? Or the records of those mercenaries and which government agencies and officials hired them?). She’s a serial killer doing what serial killers do: looking for victims whose murders they can justify.

Okay… first of all, saying “strawman” whenever you disagree with someone doesn’t make it so, just as calling a tail a leg doesn’t make a five legged cat.

“Strawman fallacy” is when you create an inaccurate version of what’s being argued by the other side, and then destroy that argument with your own rhetoric… even though the argument you’ve destroyed has nothing to do with what’s actually being said by the other side. When I say something you disagree with (such as whether or not Moonshadow does research beyond “some boys were acquitted of rape, therefore it’s throat slitting time”), you can call it an incorrect assertion and provide evidence to support it. But it’s not a strawman. Focus on the facts, the evidence: is she or is she not justified in vigilantism?

Regarding the boys… yeah, there’s plenty of indication that they’re guilty (given their stupid fratboy banter shortly before being murdered). But even if they were genuinely guilty, the jury themselves were not presented with a convincing argument (and there have been plenty of cases where genuinely innocent people have been saved by juries in spite of biased judges, and even “jury nullification” in the case of unjust laws such as drug prohibition). And if their “not guilty” verdict was the result of corruption on the part of the judge, district attorney, and/or defense attorney… then Moonshadow has done NOTHING to help the situation. There’s still corrupt lawyers taking part in future trials, and now even if Moonshadow DOES swipe their computer records, financial details, recordings of conversations in country clubs with an invisible woman holding a tape recorder five feet away, etc, they can now dismiss it as something created by a serial killer. She’s destroyed her own credibility.

(OK, it seems Disqus has once again marked a lengthy reply as spam. Let’s try this)

As you can see from my reply to Lisa, I disagree with her, but I’m not accusing her of creating a strawman.

As for your point about a lack of a convincing argument leading to acquittal, was that actually what happened in the story? I don’t recall, but I might have easily missed something.

However, I do know that any corruption of the various officials involved was not at all mentioned in the story, so why bring it up?

(BTW, I see you haven’t mentioned various ideologies eg anti-feminism that could quite easily have been prevalent enough in enough of the people involved, not to mention the system itself, so as to make an acquittal a reasonably expected result regardless of the prosecution.)

Has Moonshadow really “done nothing to help the situation”? I have my doubts. So long as there is at least one masculinist/anti-feminist out there who has decided against raping a woman for fear of Moonshadow’s retribution, I’d call that a help. Of course, we’ll never really know. Furthermore, will her act positively affect people on a more collective level eg the political? It might or might not; it could even make things worse. We’ll just have to see (and, given this is only a comic-book world with as much a future as its creators want it to have, we might never find out to our satisfaction).

(cont’d)

1: The fact that she used Sodium Pentothal even once casts her entire methodology into question. The stuff doesn’t work, and it has nasty side effects which I’ll be pointing out further down:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium_thiopental#Truth_serum

We don’t know if she’s used it more than once – but we do know she used it at least once. And has openly boasted that her actual kill count is far higher than anyone suspects (she simply stopped being subtle in the last few months).

2: Attempting to slice Alison’s throat has nothing to do with research – it has everything to do with her state of mind. Even Moonshadow herself realized, at least for a moment, that what she’s doing is seriously messed up given that she tried to murder her friend like that. She thought she had a chance to slice Alison’s throat – and immediately took the chance. That is not even remotely a sane or balanced state of mind. That’s the mindset Terry Pratchett described in his Discworld “the Truth.” “It wasn’t often you met someone who’d kill you because it seemed like a good idea at the time.”

3: she’s been proven wrong at least once. When she KILLED Furnace. Because he is dead. He woke up with Sodium Pentothal in his system, a bomb on his chest, and in the presence of two people with active grudges against him and one of whom had violently attacked and then “interrogated” him. Kind of like the scene in “Batman Returns” when Micheal Keaton’s Batman comes across the frightened, drugged, confused singer that the Penguin left on the rooftop… who promptly falls off the roof, setting up Batman to be accused of her murder. Which, as with Moonshadow, is “Felony Murder.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_murder_rule

“when an offender kills (regardless of intent to kill) in the commission of a dangerous or enumerated crime (called a felony in some jurisdictions), he/she is guilty of murder.”

Just as Furnace would have been guilty of murder if those people endangered by his attempt to melt that bullet had not been protected, so too is Moonshadow guilty of his murder.

4: “Last you checked?” Check again – the “fratboy rapists” she slaughtered are themselves based on RL incidents where the culprits were given slaps on the wrist, had the charges dropped/reduced, or both, because of collusion between the judges and/or D.A. and the accused and/or relatives of the accused. She sliced the throats of the fictional expy of that Stanford twerp, Brock Turner.

And those weren’t just murderers, those were mercenaries – the “defense contractors” hired by people to do nasty things. Killing them means she took away one of their tools. They have others. She has fixed nothing, accomplished nothing, except the joys of killing someone. She didn’t just fail to expose the very real conspiracy of “wealthy and powerful special interest groups have been employing mercenaries to engage in horrible crimes,” she helped cover it up by making sure the mercenaries would never be able to testify. If I were their former employers I’d be thrilled – she’ll never come after me because she’s sloppy and stupid and never did bother to find out who hired them, and I can always hire new mercs to replace the ones she killed.

5: Serial killers invariably look for victims they can justify. In their own sick minds, they’re the HEROES. They’re struggling to work through problems and they do so by… killing. They target streetwalkers because they’re not the only ones who think society is better off without them (the whole “disposable sex worker” trope got started because police generally don’t give a crap – even if a victim survives, escapes, and calls the cops. As happened with a Canadian pig farmer who was feeding his victims to his pigs). They target women who remind them of their abusive mothers (as with Edmund Kemper). They target men because they’re misandrists and believe men hurt them just by being alive and in proximity (as with Aileen Wuornos).

Nobody does anything until they’ve justified it to themselves. Including murderers.

6: Presumption of innocence and due process have everything to do with my characterization of Moonshadow as someone who has decided she is above the law, that she can do whatever she wants, that she doesn’t have to answer to anybody for it. If she had sufficient proof that her victims were guilty, she should have shared it with everyone (not just the police, but also the media and the internet, so as to prevent any attempt to cover up the leaks). The U.S. government has been guilty of executing wrongly convicted inmates for many years, and I don’t think anyone here is going to justify that. It doesn’t make it any better when it’s one person looking at a situation, instantly deciding someone is a bad guy, and happily chirps, “oh boy, here I go killing again.”

1: The fact that she thought sodium pentothal is even remotely reliable says a great deal about her methodology. It’d be like seeing a “professional gunfighter” who holds their pistol sideways, “gangsta” style. The moment you see a mistake THAT glaring, you can make a safe bet regarding what else they’re likely to do.

2: Homosexuality doesn’t kill people. And it’s actually a bit insulting to draw the comparison – you’re implying that “sexual attraction to persons of the same gender” is no different from “murderous abnormal psychological gratification.” To use the blunt terminology of a southern comedian like Ron White, “a man sucking another man off doesn’t leave someone in the morgue.”

3: As I said, she placed him in a position leading to his death. She drugged him (which is a major felony by itself) after kidnapping him (another major felony) to coerce a confession (also a felony) in the hopes of justifying murdering him (yet another big felony). Even though she didn’t slice his throat, she’s still guilty of Negligent Homicide:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negligent_homicide

4: “anti-feminist” means “opposed to some of the frankly INSANE things being spouted by certain individuals who have commandeered feminism.” It does not mean “we believe all women need to be raped, every day, to put them in their place,” it means “men are twice as likely to commit suicide, have a shorter life expectancy, and have their needs and issues devalued.” As Wonder Woman would put it: you can be pro-woman without being anti-man. And vice versa.

Whereas those examples I cited were obvious RL incidents, so to dismiss the idea of them not being based on those RL incidents is an act of mental gymnastics roughly on a par with the fangirls who used to insist that FF7’s Sephiroth was secretly the good guy all along.

5: Thank you for acknowledging my point. Incidentally, Pythia said something as well that is actually a very good point in favor of YOUR arguments; scroll up.

6: Not talking about strawman anything, I’m talking about how Moonshadow’s actions are those of the misguided fanatic who insists they’re the hero, even as they spread pain and suffering and then respond to criticism by redoubling their efforts. Simply put: she’s insane, she’s not helping, she’s making things worse.

1: “one use of the drug?” The usage of the drug is itself a felony, performed during the commission of multiple additional felonies. And not “victimless crimes” or trivial mistakes, but actual “harmed another person” crimes.

2: The idea that Moonshadow is a mentally disturbed individual who has caused pain and suffering and is herself clearly miserable, unbalanced, and in need of incarceration both for her own sake and that of others is actually a very solid foundation. I’m not saying she should be thrown into a padded cell to stop her from engaging in lesbian sex, I’m saying she should be thrown into a padded cell to stop her from murdering people in between her sessions with a therapist who can try to help her.

3: That is the point I’m holding. Including the whole “negligent homicide” bit. Which is why my stating “Moonshadow has killed innocent people” is me stating a fact, not asserting a theory.

4: You’re the one who brought up “anti-feminism.” You might have been looking for the term “misogynist,” if you’re wanting a term that translates as “actively hates women and wants to punish them for being female.” As for the RL stuff, it’s fairly obvious that the events in the comic are derived from RL. That makes it relevant, that makes it interesting, and that makes it the work of capable creators who are well read and interested in providing a webcomic to entertain as well as educate. Which is pretty much exactly what their openly declared intentions are.

1: No, that is the point. She resorted to a method that doesn’t work, while carrying out a strategy that doesn’t work. Because she wanted an excuse to kill people.

3: I already have. Negligent Homicide – hell, in the latest page’s comments Mechwarrior has suggested that:

“given that she strapped an explosive device to him and had intent to kill him, I’m pretty sure that his death would legally be considered 1st Degree premeditated homicide.”

Yeah ,the point is done. She’s killed innocent people. And hurt innocent people. The point is indeed done.

4:”Conspiracy” doesn’t have to mean a global illuminati. It can also mean small scale collusion between individuals with clout. When you find out that your daughter’s rapist got away with it because their Daddy’s friends with the county prosecutor and goes golfing with a councilman, that’s enough of a conspiracy for more effective heroes to get things done by blowing things wide open.

Today the media is widely distrusted, but back in the 1970s they were extremely well regarded – especially since they had a habit of going after the backroom shenanigans of officials, politicians, police officers, and the like. Do some reading on Mike Royko. The man used to have the rich and powerful call him up and literally BEG him not to run his pieces. He once did two stories on the VA board in short order – first when he told the world about their refusal to pay to rebuild enough of a Vietnam veteran’s face to allow him to eat solid food again, then to tell everyone how the VA board suddenly changed its decision when everyone wanted to know how “getting one’s face blown off by a landmine” was considered “not a service related injury.”

1: I’m guessing you’re unaccustomed to participating in potentially dangerous activities such as firearms use or… vehicular driving. First of all: when there’s a particularly egregious mistake (such as driving on the wrong side of the road) it’s safe to assume the person making the mistake is prone to making similar mistakes (which is why you get points marked down on the driving test for lesser offenses… but driving on the wrong side of the road will result in an automatic disqualification). Second: when it’s a potentially dangerous activity… well, as my brother said when he first taught his younger siblings: “Here are the three primary rules of gun safety. If you violate one, I will knock you on your ass. THEN I will tell you what you did wrong.” (and since Moonshadow’s activities have resulted in the deaths of a lot of people, including innocent ones… yeah, her methodology and research are sloppy)

3: You’ve just acknowledged that Moonshadow is indeed guilty of negligent homicide. She’s SLOPPY. Ridiculously so… in the way that RL serial killers tend to be (RL serial killers are less “supergenius doctor cannibals placing victims in Saw deathtraps and secretly working for the incompetent police forces trying to apprehend them” and more “mentally disturbed and often not overly intelligent psychos who chase a girl across three states because, and this is a quote: “part of me wanted to get to know her as a person, and part of me wanted to see what her head would look like on a stick”). The fact that she’s guilty of negligent homicide is indeed proof of her sloppy methodology. At least one innocent person died onscreen because of her sloppy research and methodology. She went after a guy who was innocent because he said some “mean things” about Alison. Instead of using those powers of hers to shadow him, check his computer records, eavesdrop on him with his associates… she literally has all the abilities that intelligence agencies WISH they had available to them, and the best thing she can come up with is “kidnap them, tie them up, then use sodium pentothal and “enhanced interrogation” to get the truth?” SLOPPY AND STUPID.

(Part 1 of 2)

As you can see from my reply to Lisa, I disagree with her, but I’m not accusing her of creating a strawman.

As for your point about a lack of a convincing argument leading to acquittal, was that actually what happened in the story? I don’t recall, but I might have easily missed something. However, I do know that any corruption of the various officials involved was not at all mentioned in the story, so why bring it up? (BTW, I see you haven’t mentioned various ideologies eg anti-feminism that could quite easily have been prevalent enough in enough of the people involved, not to mention the system itself, so as to make an acquittal a reasonably expected result regardless of the prosecution.)

Has Moonshadow really “done nothing to help the situation”? I have my doubts. So long as there is at least one masculinist/anti-feminist out there who has decided against raping a woman for fear of Moonshadow’s retribution, I’d call that a help. Of course, we’ll never really know. Furthermore, will her act positively affect people on a more collective level eg the political? It might or might not; it could even make things worse. We’ll just have to see (and, given this is only a comic-book world with as much a future as its creators want it to have, we might never find out to our satisfaction).

The AFAWCT means “As Far As We Can Tell” ie she might make a mistake in the future, but, just based on what we’ve actually seen in the comic, she hasn’t made one single error.

I brought up the “random, nameless individual” to point out that Moonshadow’s actions might not be non-helpful.

Do I have doubts? Oh, indeed. I’m just pointing out logical errors at the moment (and I don’t think I’ve ever asserted that Moonshadow didn’t murder people; I certainly have no problem with her being called a murderer).

Your binary logic concerning the results of the boys’ trial is hardly what I’d call robust (such logic rarely is).

I certainly agree her actions are criminal; as for wrong or stupid, that really just depends on your PoV.

I disagree that Arkone was arguing against the actual situation. I’ve explained why, and I have no interest in having you or Arkone repeat ad nauseam the definition of strawman, which, so far, has had zero ability to convince me I’ve gotten it wrong.

As far as this particular matter is concerned, I’m done arguing it.

http://strongfemaleprotagonist.com/issue-5/page-25-4/

Link for convenience. Also, he mentions a trial, maybe he was the corrupt judge or something on top of that?