If zombies actually existed, an attack by them would lead to the collapse of civilisation unless dealt with quickly and aggressively. That is the conclusion of a mathematical exercise carried out by researchers in Canada. They say only frequent counter-attacks with increasing force would eradicate the fictional creatures.
Me, I don’t understand what they mean with “fictional creatures”, zombies do exists. Although not eating the flesh of the living, not yet anyway, people of this world are mindless drones that saunter around without seeing what’s right in front of them and without listening to reason. Almost every human on this planet are slow-moving dim-witted creatures with no concept of basic math and with no respect for their fellow man. So the only thing really missing is connoisseurs of the cannibalistic persuasion.
Banksters and fraudulent politicians are robbing us, at gunpoint, in broad daylight, and no one says a pip. People starve by the millions despite us having the means and resources to feed everyone. Every day fascist laws increase regarding our personal lives and internet. Journalists keep feeding us lies, and the only ones getting invited to interviews to talk about how to fix problems are the same people that created the problems in the first place. And what do people do? They lull towards work (or live on welfare), constantly walking in that wheel, never complaining. The only ones complaining are communists and anarchists that want more autocracy and more of the same problem, implicitly arguing for that missing piece of cannibalism.
I have always argued that people are idiots, but zombies are even closer to the truth. Zombies are what you are and this world is going towards hell because of it.
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
The rape debate rages on
In Sweden a highly infected debate about rape, what constitutes as rape and what the penalties should be is well on the way on becoming one of this years main topics. Today the man in centre of this debate, Rolf Hillegren, has an article in one of Sweden’s newspapers explaining his position.
Among other things he argues around a theoretical example where a woman and man has regular sexual relationship, but one day the female goes to the police and says that she one night told her man that she didn’t want to have sex, but the man did her anyway during which she remained passive. Hillegren claims that this should not be constituted as rape and that there is no reason for having an additional law or interpretation of the law in order to be able to convict the man in this example. In this he is, of course, completely accurate in his judgement. This cannot, no matter if you look at it from a moral, juridical or from an intellectual standpoint, be the same as rape. Consequently it cannot either be punishable according to the same law.
However, he sort of, again, steps into it. This because he argues (at least that’s how one can interpret it) that the rule of consent isn’t applicable according to any kind of law, which is not true. Even if we ignore statutory rape wherein a minor, in dependent position, can be taken advantage of an elder, there is still other situations where force isn’t necessarily needed. Imagine a situation where one woman is surrounded by 4 men, she knows they are going to rape her, no matter what she does. She might not even say no or resists at all, what’s the point? And since the government conveniently have outlaw self-defence she is at the mercy of those men and gets raped. This is a situation Hillegren avoids taking into account and, of course, this will be one of the points his adversaries will jump at. I don’t think he really argues that this is not rape, but if one read his article this can be read into it and, of course, many will do just that. However, he also has a point in this regard, only looking at the law. How can you ever prove that a female didn’t want to have groupsex if there is no evidence?
I think this entire situation is bad for the entire justice situation in Sweden. On one side we have rabid feminist ass-holes that believe that all men are evil incarnated and that even sex itself is an abomination hence a “no” in any form always means that the man is a rapists. On the other side we have a dogmatic lawman that only looks at the law and what can be proven according to that law. Although the debate is in the table, which is good, the arguments thrown around are, for the most part, about the wrong things. What should be debated is the law itself, and the potential punishments in addition to a discussion about self-defence and how to reduce the number of rapes. Everything about rape and the law in this regard is very hard to discuss because there is so much feelings involved.
I agree with Hillegren on his basic points, that his fictive scenario cannot be construed as rape and IF a situation like that is punishable, it is not anywhere near the levels of “real rape”. I also agree with the adjustments in the law and that our courts cannot only listen to statements and words, they need to have evidence. However, the discussion should really be expanded and involve more of reality, not just the law as it is or about fictive patriarch structures.
The current law is wrong in the sense that any “ordinary” rapists almost always get around 2-2,5 years in prison if convicted, and since almost no one sits their entire jail-time he (or she) will be released before that time has passed. Also the retribution that should be paid to the victim is always paid by the state, which is nonsense. We should never let a rapist out of jail until that person has paid his dues. This is ridiculous and the jail-time for violating someone in this manor should rend at least ten times that sentence, preferably much more. I do believe in letting people, within reason, have another chance, also regarding such idiots as rapists. However, a repeated offender should never be let out or, rather, be executed.
Also, we need to debate and really change the law so people actually can defend themselves. How can a 90lbs female defend herself against a 200lbs man? With a couple of 9mm bullets.
Among other things he argues around a theoretical example where a woman and man has regular sexual relationship, but one day the female goes to the police and says that she one night told her man that she didn’t want to have sex, but the man did her anyway during which she remained passive. Hillegren claims that this should not be constituted as rape and that there is no reason for having an additional law or interpretation of the law in order to be able to convict the man in this example. In this he is, of course, completely accurate in his judgement. This cannot, no matter if you look at it from a moral, juridical or from an intellectual standpoint, be the same as rape. Consequently it cannot either be punishable according to the same law.
However, he sort of, again, steps into it. This because he argues (at least that’s how one can interpret it) that the rule of consent isn’t applicable according to any kind of law, which is not true. Even if we ignore statutory rape wherein a minor, in dependent position, can be taken advantage of an elder, there is still other situations where force isn’t necessarily needed. Imagine a situation where one woman is surrounded by 4 men, she knows they are going to rape her, no matter what she does. She might not even say no or resists at all, what’s the point? And since the government conveniently have outlaw self-defence she is at the mercy of those men and gets raped. This is a situation Hillegren avoids taking into account and, of course, this will be one of the points his adversaries will jump at. I don’t think he really argues that this is not rape, but if one read his article this can be read into it and, of course, many will do just that. However, he also has a point in this regard, only looking at the law. How can you ever prove that a female didn’t want to have groupsex if there is no evidence?
I think this entire situation is bad for the entire justice situation in Sweden. On one side we have rabid feminist ass-holes that believe that all men are evil incarnated and that even sex itself is an abomination hence a “no” in any form always means that the man is a rapists. On the other side we have a dogmatic lawman that only looks at the law and what can be proven according to that law. Although the debate is in the table, which is good, the arguments thrown around are, for the most part, about the wrong things. What should be debated is the law itself, and the potential punishments in addition to a discussion about self-defence and how to reduce the number of rapes. Everything about rape and the law in this regard is very hard to discuss because there is so much feelings involved.
I agree with Hillegren on his basic points, that his fictive scenario cannot be construed as rape and IF a situation like that is punishable, it is not anywhere near the levels of “real rape”. I also agree with the adjustments in the law and that our courts cannot only listen to statements and words, they need to have evidence. However, the discussion should really be expanded and involve more of reality, not just the law as it is or about fictive patriarch structures.
The current law is wrong in the sense that any “ordinary” rapists almost always get around 2-2,5 years in prison if convicted, and since almost no one sits their entire jail-time he (or she) will be released before that time has passed. Also the retribution that should be paid to the victim is always paid by the state, which is nonsense. We should never let a rapist out of jail until that person has paid his dues. This is ridiculous and the jail-time for violating someone in this manor should rend at least ten times that sentence, preferably much more. I do believe in letting people, within reason, have another chance, also regarding such idiots as rapists. However, a repeated offender should never be let out or, rather, be executed.
Also, we need to debate and really change the law so people actually can defend themselves. How can a 90lbs female defend herself against a 200lbs man? With a couple of 9mm bullets.
Madness, complete and utter madness
JPMorgan got a bail-out of $25 billion from the government despite showing huge profits before and after that additional money and then they pay those $25 billion back just a couple months later. In March JPMorgan announced plans to spend $138 million for swank corporate jets and a new hangar. Unt now JPMorgan is lending the bankrupt state of California $1.5 billion. Does anyone else smell a rotten and decapitated fish?
On a similar note General Motors (GM), near bankruptcy just months ago, saved by hundreds of billions of indebt money, announced yesterday that they plan to boost production at several of its factories because of higher sales from the government's ``cash for clunkers'' programme – you know, that temporary thingy that destroys useful cars and increase US debt.
US citizens are moving along on that high-way towards fascist hell in a car they paid for 3 times over and indebted themselves for both personally and through government. This while cities along the road are closing down to save money and other urban areas are turning into ghost towns because no work exists. The prophetic books of Ayn Rand have never shined with such clarity.
This is complete madness and it’s hard to know if one is supposed to cry or buy vodka. US is no more, only lefties hell remains.
On a similar note General Motors (GM), near bankruptcy just months ago, saved by hundreds of billions of indebt money, announced yesterday that they plan to boost production at several of its factories because of higher sales from the government's ``cash for clunkers'' programme – you know, that temporary thingy that destroys useful cars and increase US debt.
US citizens are moving along on that high-way towards fascist hell in a car they paid for 3 times over and indebted themselves for both personally and through government. This while cities along the road are closing down to save money and other urban areas are turning into ghost towns because no work exists. The prophetic books of Ayn Rand have never shined with such clarity.
This is complete madness and it’s hard to know if one is supposed to cry or buy vodka. US is no more, only lefties hell remains.
No suprise
Another fantastic sign
So finally some media has picked up this story. This has been mentioned a lot of times by people using their brains.
US Commercial Real Estate Collaspe
US Commercial Real Estate Collaspe
More fantastic news from US
While the Obamination keep breaking his campaign promisses and is making the Afghan war his own, spending hundreds of billions more (Apparently all those speaches about taking troops home that was the main reason for his election, was just another lie)the fed have run out of money to keep buying treasuries i.e. monetarizing government debt.
Unless Bernanke doesn’t change his mind about stopping at $300 billion, there is just a few billions left to play with. Since Geithner the other day urged to expand government expenditures, I do not see why not Bernanke will not do the same. Especially since the housing market is still dropping. Compared to the same period a year ago, building permits declined 39.4 percent, well below expectations. This isn’t really bad news since people don’t have money to buy homes anyway, but it puts a serious dent in the scheme the Obamination administration has. The inventory of total houses under construction fell to record low 609,000 in July while the total number of permits authorized but not yet started also hit a record low at 102,300.
Now here you also need to know that the main reason the American government can plot about their little stimuli and bail-outs is China, whom, tada! Since a couple of months back is a net seller of U.S. Treasuries. So when that unemployment keep rising, debt is sky-high, the treasury is insolvent and there is nothing left to take from and the main lender is starting to slowly move away, what’s left? Only one last alternative in the world of cornflakes and Keynesianism; that oh so funny Guttenberg invention. Well, today it’s a computer and all you need to do is press a couple of buttons and a couple of other trillions pops up, but you get the idea. So all those real economists (and yours truly) that have been warning about hyperinflation seem to have been, again, spot on.
Oh, I cannot wait for this debacle.
Unless Bernanke doesn’t change his mind about stopping at $300 billion, there is just a few billions left to play with. Since Geithner the other day urged to expand government expenditures, I do not see why not Bernanke will not do the same. Especially since the housing market is still dropping. Compared to the same period a year ago, building permits declined 39.4 percent, well below expectations. This isn’t really bad news since people don’t have money to buy homes anyway, but it puts a serious dent in the scheme the Obamination administration has. The inventory of total houses under construction fell to record low 609,000 in July while the total number of permits authorized but not yet started also hit a record low at 102,300.
Now here you also need to know that the main reason the American government can plot about their little stimuli and bail-outs is China, whom, tada! Since a couple of months back is a net seller of U.S. Treasuries. So when that unemployment keep rising, debt is sky-high, the treasury is insolvent and there is nothing left to take from and the main lender is starting to slowly move away, what’s left? Only one last alternative in the world of cornflakes and Keynesianism; that oh so funny Guttenberg invention. Well, today it’s a computer and all you need to do is press a couple of buttons and a couple of other trillions pops up, but you get the idea. So all those real economists (and yours truly) that have been warning about hyperinflation seem to have been, again, spot on.
Oh, I cannot wait for this debacle.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)