Sometimes these days they'll be 12 year old American girls dressed up in an oddly sexual manner.
Now if they were trying to lure Men into marrying them, it would be one thing. But I have a sneaking suspicion that a far baser purpose is at work here considering the Anti-Marriage and Pro-Slut restrictions this Country has on 12 year old girls getting married.
But why does it feel so wrong to see 12 year old girls dressed up in a sexual manner, when it doesn't feel as wrong to see older Women dressed up like that?
One possible issue is that a minority of 12 year old girls may not have started menstruating yet, creating a situation where their habit of dressing provocatively may provide a undesirable degree of encouragement to the minority of Men who suffer from the affliction of being primarily attracted to prepubertal children.
But even leaving aside the question of Pedophilia, there's also the question of Sexual Assault.
There are plenty of 12 year girls mature enough that if they dress provocatively enough it's going to provoke a serious degree of sexual arousal in even normal Men.
And the issue is that because 12 year old girls have been taken off the marriage table, there's no socially sanctioned outlet for this sexual arousal to possibly find expression.
Note that no normal or sane society would declaim a category of Women off limits and then allow those Women to tart their way across the Countryside. Do you think the Catholic Church of old let Nuns sex up the Middle Ages after declaring them sexually off limits? (As I recall the Habit of a Nun is the incarnation of modesty itself.)
Perhaps this crazy combination of cutting Men off from marriage with young girls at the very time they're dressing so sexually explains why in 2005 American Females aged 12 to 15 were actually MORE likely to report being sexually assaulted than American Females aged 20 to 24.
This is very strange when you consider that Female Fertility peaks from age 18 to 26, a time period that isn't included in the ages of 12 to 15, but does include the ages of 20 to 25.
This goes against the general pattern that Women are most likely to be Sexually Assaulted when in their ages of peak fertility.
But even considering this, is there really much of a threat of a girl aged 12 to 15 being sexually assaulted?
Actually, there is.
In 2005 my calculations come out to 0.58% of American Girls aged 12 to 15 having been sexually assaulted in some way. This means that from 12 to 15 an American Girl has a culmative 1.79% chance of being sexually assaulted.
And that's based on the assumption that girls aged 12 to 15 are reporting their sexual assaults at the same 41.4% Rate that older Women are.
But probably girls that age are reporting sexual assault at a significantly lower rate than older Women, and this suggests my estimation that there's a 1 in 55.8 chance of a girl being sexually assaulted from the ages of 12 to 15 is all too optimistic.
Unless the FBI is counting a lot of consensual underaged sex as Sexual Assault, which I doubt, the chances of a 12 year old girl being sexually assaulted before her 16th birthday is almost certainly even higher than 1 in 55.8.
And this doesn't even get into the issue that a more sexually dressed 12 year old girl is going to be more likely to engage in consensual sexual activities. Since young Women are forbidden to marry by a mad society, this consequently socially and romantically meaningless sex will do three things:
1. Increase her chances of catching STDs.
2. Increase the chance that her future sexual partners will catch STDs.
3. Coarsen her and destroy her ability to love a Man in any meaningful way, by desensitizing her brain to the effects of Oxycontin released by her body during the sexual act and its aftermath.
And once a Woman has lost the ability to love the Man she has sex with and to feel a real loyalty to him, why should any Man be crazy enough to marry her or otherwise commit to her in any meaningful way?
It certainly isn't like American Men can count on society to keep their Wives in line, and even American Women who go so far as to Cuckold their Husbands are more often than not put at no disadvantage in modern day American Child Support Hearings:
DNA tests are confirming men's suspicions of not being their kid's real dad -- but they're still made to pay up
Tracy Clark-Flory, Salon
Nov. 20, 2009
"A man is supposed to take care of his children. If he gets a woman pregnant, he's expected to step up and take responsibility. But what if that man discovers that the child he thought was his own -- the kid he read to, cuddled and tucked in at night -- is another man's? Then who is responsible for the kid -- the biological father or the nurturing adoptive dad? That is the quandary increasingly being raised by DNA tests. As Ruth Padawer writes in a fascinating cover story for the upcoming New York Times Magazine, the rise of paternity tests -- bought on the cheap online or at local drug stores -- have revealed "just how murky society’s notions of fatherhood actually are."
Mike L., the lead subject in Padawer's piece, found evidence of his wife's affair with a coworker and decided to have L., his 5-year-old daughter, take a DNA test. The results arrived in the mail: He was not the father. "I ran upstairs, locked myself in the bathroom and cried and dry-heaved for 45 minutes. I felt like my guts were being ripped out," he says. Mike separated from his wife, Stephanie, and began paying her child support because, he says, she claimed Rob, L.'s bio-dad, had refused. Things continued on this way for several years, until he got news that Stephanie would be marrying Rob, and that was too much to bear. He asked a Pennsylvania court to relieve him of parental responsibility, but a judge ruled that Mike was the legal father, not Rob.
Padawer explains, "Once a man has been deemed a father, either because of marriage or because he has acknowledged paternity (by agreeing to be on the birth certificate, say, or paying child support), most state courts say he cannot then abandon that child -- no matter what a DNA test subsequently reveals," she continues. "In Pennsylvania and many other states, the only way a non-biological father can rebut his legal status as father is if he can prove he was tricked into the role -- a showing of fraud -- and can demonstrate that upon learning the truth, he immediately stopped acting as the child’s father." In Mike's case, the judge ruled that he was the legal father because he stuck around even after the DNA test."
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Sometimes these days they'll be 12 year old American girls dressed up in an oddly sexual manner.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Monday, April 26, 2010
From The Guardian:
Europe presses UK to introduce total ban on smacking children
The UK will come under increasing pressure to ban all smacking and corporal punishment of children as the European human rights body steps up pressure for a change in the law.
The Council of Europe – which monitors compliance with the European convention on human rights – will criticise the UK because it has not banned smacking more than 10 years after a ruling in 1998 that the practice could violate children's rights against inhuman and degrading treatment.
"The campaign to abolish corporal punishment across the Council of Europe is gathering momentum; 20 countries have formally abolished laws allowing it in the past three years," said Maud de Boer-Buquicchio, deputy secretary general of the Council of Europe.
"The UK is one of the countries that has not yet implemented a full ban. In part, this is because the traditional parent-child relationship in the UK is one of authority [and] state intervention into family affairs is still not welcome," she added.
Current law prohibits the use of force against children, but gives adults in the home and in some part-time schools and religious institutions a defence to the charge of assault in cases of mild force where they can show the punishment was reasonable.
There are three main issues here:
1. We have the Deputy Secretary General of the Council of Europe openly saying that there's something wrong with people in the United Kingdom thinking that a parent-child relationship should be based on authority.
2. The State has no right to tell parents not to spank their children.
3. The European Union has no right to tell the Government of the United Kingdom to tell parents not to spank their children.
You know what? I'm going to try the EU thing myself. I'm going to tell someone I have no right to order around to order around yet someone else they have no right to order around!
Dear City of Brussels,
We are the WU (World Union). Just as your authority supervenes that of England, logically enough it must follow that our authority supervenes even the great authority you possess.
Ye must make it statute that on the morrow all fathers in your stinking town must carry forth their virgin daughters before us.
But all Women not virgins, and all Men whether they be virgins or not be virgins, shall be slaughtered with the edge of the sword.
Thus the land will be cleansed of those Women who seduced the World to worship Television, and the Men who unmanfully used their Women to so tempt them.
Especially needs ye bring forth the head of the one you call Balaam.
That is all.
Sunday, April 25, 2010
I said that today most people hold more favorable stereotypes of women than men. It was not always thus. Up until about the 1960s, psychology (like society) tended to see men as the norm and women as the slightly inferior version. During the 1970s, there was a brief period of saying there were no real differences, just stereotypes. Only since about 1980 has the dominant view been that women are better and men are the inferior version. The surprising thing to me is that it took little more than a decade to go from one view to its opposite, that is, from thinking men are better than women to thinking women are better than men. How is this possible?"A Good Bull is Half the Herd."
Men go to extremes more than women. Stereotypes are sustained by confirmation bias. Want to think men are better than women? Then look at the top, the heroes, the inventors, the philanthropists, and so on. Want to think women are better than men? Then look at the bottom, the criminals, the junkies, the losers. In an important sense, men really are better AND worse than women.
A pattern of more men at both extremes can create all sorts of misleading conclusions and other statistical mischief. To illustrate, let’s assume that men and women are on average exactly equal in every relevant respect, but more men at both extremes. If you then measure things that are bounded at one end, it screws up the data to make men and women seem significantly different.
Consider grade point average in college. Thanks to grade inflation, most students now get A’s and B’s, but a few range all the way down to F. With that kind of low ceiling, the high-achieving males cannot pull up the male average, but the loser males will pull it down. The result will be that women will get higher average grades than men — again despite no difference in average quality of work.
The opposite result comes with salaries. There is a minimum wage but no maximum. Hence the high-achieving men can pull the male average up while the low-achieving ones can’t pull it down. The result? Men will get higher average salaries than women.
Today, sure enough, women get higher college grades but lower salaries than men. There is much discussion about what all this means and what should be done about it. But as you see, both facts could be just a statistical quirk stemming from male extremity.
When you think about it, the idea that one gender is all-around better than the other is not very plausible. Why would nature make one gender better than the other? Evolution selects for good, favorable traits, and if there’s one good way to be, after a few generations everyone will be that way.
But evolution will preserve differences when there is a tradeoff: when one trait is good for one thing, while the opposite is good for something else.
Let’s return to the three main theories we’ve had about gender: Men are better, no difference, and women are better. What’s missing from that list? Different but equal. Let me propose that as a rival theory that deserves to be considered. I think it’s actually the most plausible one. Natural selection will preserve innate differences between men and women as long as the different traits are beneficial in different circumstances or for different tasks.
Tradeoff example: African-Americans suffer from sickle cell anemia more than white people. This appears to be due to a genetic vulnerability. That gene, however, promotes resistance to malaria. Black people evolved in regions where malaria was a major killer, so it was worth having this gene despite the increased risk of sickle cell anemia. White people evolved in colder regions, where there was less malaria, and so the tradeoff was resolved differently, more avoiding the gene that prevented malaria while risking sickle cell anemia.
The tradeoff approach yields a radical theory of gender equality. Men and women may be different, but each advantage may be linked to a disadvantage.
Hence whenever you hear a report that one gender is better at something, stop and consider why this is likely true — and what the opposite trait might be good for.
Can’t Vs. Won’t
Before we go too far down that path, though, let me raise another radical idea. Maybe the differences between the genders are more about motivation than ability. This is the difference between can’t and won’t.
Return for a moment to the Larry Summers issue about why there aren’t more female physics professors at Harvard. Maybe women can do math and science perfectly well but they just don’t like to. After all, most men don’t like math either! Of the small minority of people who do like math, there are probably more men than women. Research by Eccles has repeatedly concluded that the shortage of females in math and science reflects motivation more than ability. And by the same logic, I suspect most men could learn to change diapers and vacuum under the sofa perfectly well too, and if men don’t do those things, it’s because they don’t want to or don’t like to, not because they are constitutionally unable (much as they may occasionally pretend otherwise!).
Several recent works have questioned the whole idea of gender differences in abilities: Even when average differences are found, they tend to be extremely small. In contrast, when you look at what men and women want, what they like, there are genuine differences. Look at research on the sex drive: Men and women may have about equal “ability” in sex, whatever that means, but there are big differences as to motivation: which gender thinks about sex all the time, wants it more often, wants more different partners, risks more for sex, masturbates more, leaps at every opportunity, and so on. Our survey of published research found that pretty much every measure and every study showed higher sex drive in men. It’s official: men are hornier than women. This is a difference in motivation.
Likewise, I mentioned the salary difference, but it may have less to do with ability than motivation. High salaries come from working super-long hours. Workaholics are mostly men. (There are some women, just not as many as men.) One study counted that over 80% of the people who work 50-hour weeks are men.
That means that if we want to achieve our ideal of equal salaries for men and women, we may need to legislate the principle of equal pay for less work. [Which would be bat guano insane.]
Creativity may be another example of gender difference in motivation rather than ability. The evidence presents a seeming paradox, because the tests of creativity generally show men and women scoring about the same, yet through history some men have been much more creative than women. An explanation that fits this pattern is that men and women have the same creative ability but different motivations.
I am a musician, and I’ve long wondered about this difference. We know from the classical music scene that women can play instruments beautifully, superbly, proficiently — essentially just as well as men. They can and many do. Yet in jazz, where the performer has to be creative while playing, there is a stunning imbalance: hardly any women improvise. Why? The ability is there but perhaps the motivation is less. They don’t feel driven to do it.
I suppose the stock explanation for any such difference is that women were not encouraged, or were not appreciated, or were discouraged from being creative. But I don’t think this stock explanation fits the facts very well. In the 19th century in America, middle-class girls and women played piano far more than men. Yet all that piano playing failed to result in any creative output. There were no great women composers, no new directions in style of music or how to play, or anything like that. All those female pianists entertained their families and their dinner guests but did not seem motivated to create anything new.
Meanwhile, at about the same time, black men in America created blues and then jazz, both of which changed the way the world experiences music. By any measure, those black men, mostly just emerging from slavery, were far more disadvantaged than the middle-class white women. Even getting their hands on a musical instrument must have been considerably harder. And remember, I’m saying that the creative abilities are probably about equal. But somehow the men were driven to create something new, more than the women.
One test of what’s meaningfully real is the marketplace. It’s hard to find anybody making money out of gender differences in abilities. But in motivation, there are plenty. Look at the magazine industry: men’s magazines cover different stuff from women’s magazines, because men and women like and enjoy and are interested in different things. Look at the difference in films between the men’s and women’s cable channels. Look at the difference in commercials for men or for women.
This brings us to an important part of the argument. I’m suggesting the important differences between men and women are to be found in motivation rather than ability. What, then, are these differences? I want to emphasize two.
The Most Underappreciated Fact
The first big, basic difference has to do with what I consider to be the most underappreciated fact about gender. Consider this question: What percent of our ancestors were women?
It’s not a trick question, and it’s not 50%. True, about half the people who ever lived were women, but that’s not the question. We’re asking about all the people who ever lived who have a descendant living today. Or, put another way, yes, every baby has both a mother and a father, but some of those parents had multiple children.
Recent research using DNA analysis answered this question about two years ago. Today’s human population is descended from twice as many women as men.
I think this difference is the single most underappreciated fact about gender. To get that kind of difference, you had to have something like, throughout the entire history of the human race, maybe 80% of women but only 40% of men reproduced.
Right now our field is having a lively debate about how much behavior can be explained by evolutionary theory. But if evolution explains anything at all, it explains things related to reproduction, because reproduction is at the heart of natural selection. Basically, the traits that were most effective for reproduction would be at the center of evolutionary psychology. It would be shocking if these vastly different reproductive odds for men and women failed to produce some personality differences.
For women throughout history (and prehistory), the odds of reproducing have been pretty good. Later in this talk we will ponder things like, why was it so rare for a hundred women to get together and build a ship and sail off to explore unknown regions, whereas men have fairly regularly done such things? But taking chances like that would be stupid, from the perspective of a biological organism seeking to reproduce. They might drown or be killed by savages or catch a disease. For women, the optimal thing to do is go along with the crowd, be nice, play it safe. The odds are good that men will come along and offer sex and you’ll be able to have babies. All that matters is choosing the best offer. We’re descended from women who played it safe.
For men, the outlook was radically different. If you go along with the crowd and play it safe, the odds are you won’t have children. Most men who ever lived did not have descendants who are alive today. Their lines were dead ends. Hence it was necessary to take chances, try new things, be creative, explore other possibilities. Sailing off into the unknown may be risky, and you might drown or be killed or whatever, but then again if you stay home you won’t reproduce anyway. We’re most descended from the type of men who made the risky voyage and managed to come back rich. In that case he would finally get a good chance to pass on his genes. We’re descended from men who took chances (and were lucky).
The huge difference in reproductive success very likely contributed to some personality differences, because different traits pointed the way to success. Women did best by minimizing risks, whereas the successful men were the ones who took chances. Ambition and competitive striving probably mattered more to male success (measured in offspring) than female. Creativity was probably more necessary, to help the individual man stand out in some way. Even the sex drive difference was relevant: For many men, there would be few chances to reproduce and so they had to be ready for every sexual opportunity. If a man said “not today, I have a headache,” he might miss his only chance.
Another crucial point. The danger of having no children is only one side of the male coin. Every child has a biological mother and father, and so if there were only half as many fathers as mothers among our ancestors, then some of those fathers had lots of children.
Look at it this way. Most women have only a few children, and hardly any have more than a dozen — but many fathers have had more than a few, and some men have actually had several dozen, even hundreds of kids.
In terms of the biological competition to produce offspring, then, men outnumbered women both among the losers and among the biggest winners.
To put this in more subjective terms: When I walk around and try to look at men and women as if seeing them for the first time, it’s hard to escape the impression (sorry, guys!) that women are simply more likeable and lovable than men. (This I think explains the “Women Are Wonderful effect” where both men and women hold much more favorable views of women than of men.) Men might wish to be lovable, and men can and do manage to get women to love them (so the ability is there), but men have other priorities, other motivations.
For women, being lovable was the key to attracting the best mate. For men, however, it was more a matter of beating out lots of other men even to have a chance for a mate.
Tradeoffs again: perhaps nature designed women to seek to be lovable, whereas men were designed to strive, mostly unsuccessfully, for greatness.
And it was worth it, even despite the “mostly unsuccessfully” part. Experts estimate Genghis Khan had several hundred and perhaps more than a thousand children. He took big risks and eventually conquered most of the known world. For him, the big risks led to huge payoffs in offspring. My point is that NO woman, even if she conquered twice as much territory as Genghis Khan, could have had a thousand children. Striving for greatness in that sense offered the human female no such biological payoff.
For the man, the possibility was there, and so the blood of Genghis Khan runs through a large segment of today’s human population. By definition, only a few men can achieve greatness, but for the few men who do, the gains have been real. And we are descended from those great men much more than from other men. Remember, most of the mediocre men left no descendants at all.
The Disposable Male
A second thing that makes men useful to culture is what I call male expendability. This goes back to what I said at the outset, that cultures tend to use men for the high-risk, high-payoff undertakings, where a significant portion of those will suffer bad outcomes ranging from having their time wasted, all the way to being killed.
Any man who reads the newspapers will encounter the phrase “even women and children” a couple times a month, usually about being killed. The literal meaning of this phrase is that men’s lives have less value than other people’s lives. The idea is usually “It’s bad if people are killed, but it’s especially bad if women and children are killed.” And I think most men know that in an emergency, if there are women and children present, he will be expected to lay down his life without argument or complaint so that the others can survive. On the Titanic, the richest men had a lower survival rate (34%) than the poorest women (46%) (though that’s not how it looked in the movie [Curse you James Carmeron, you rich White Men slandering Liar!]. That in itself is remarkable. The rich, powerful, and successful men, the movers and shakers, supposedly the ones that the culture is all set up to favor [according to lying Feminists] — in a pinch, their lives were valued less than those of women with hardly any money or power or status. The too-few seats in the lifeboats went to the women who weren’t even ladies, instead of to those patriarchs.
Most cultures have had the same attitude. Why? There are pragmatic reasons. When a cultural group competes against other groups, in general, the larger group tends to win out in the long run. Hence most cultures have promoted population growth. And that depends on women. To maximize reproduction, a culture needs all the wombs it can get, but a few penises can do the job. There is usually a penile surplus. If a group loses half its men, the next generation can still be full-sized. But if it loses half its women, the size of the next generation will be severely curtailed. Hence most cultures keep their women out of harm’s way while using men for risky jobs.
These risky jobs extend beyond the battlefield. Many lines of endeavor require some lives to be wasted. Exploration, for example: a culture may send out dozens of parties, and some will get lost or be killed, while others bring back riches and opportunities. Research is somewhat the same way: There may be a dozen possible theories about some problem, only one of which is correct, so the people testing the eleven wrong theories will end up wasting their time and ruining their careers, in contrast to the lucky one who gets the Nobel prize. And of course the dangerous jobs. When the scandals broke about the dangers of the mining industry in Britain, Parliament passed the mining laws that prohibited children under the age of 10 and women of all ages from being sent into the mines. Women and children were too precious to be exposed to death in the mines: so only men. As I said earlier, the gender gap in dangerous work persists today, with men accounting for the vast majority of deaths on the job.
Another basis of male expendability is built into the different ways of being social. Expendability comes with the large groups that male sociality creates. In an intimate, one-to-one relationship, neither person can really be replaced. You can remarry if your spouse dies, but it isn’t really the same marriage or relationship. And of course nobody can ever really replace a child’s mother or father.
In contrast, large groups can and do replace just about everybody. Take any large organization — the Ford Motor Company, the U.S. Army, the Green Bay Packers — and you’ll find that the organization goes on despite having replaced every single person in it. Moreover, every member off those groups knows he or she can be replaced and probably will be replaced some day.
Thus, men create the kind of social networks where individuals are replaceable and expendable. Women favor the kind of relationships in which each person is precious and cannot truly be replaced.
To summarize my main points: A few lucky men are at the top of society and enjoy the culture’s best rewards. Others, less fortunate, have their lives chewed up by it. Culture uses both men and women, but most cultures use them in somewhat different ways. Most cultures see individual men as more expendable than individual women, and this difference is probably based on nature, in whose reproductive competition some men are the big losers and other men are the biggest winners. Hence it uses men for the many risky jobs it has.
Men go to extremes more than women, and this fits in well with culture using them to try out lots of different things, rewarding the winners and crushing the losers.
Culture is not about men against women. By and large, cultural progress emerged from groups of men working with and against other men. While women concentrated on the close relationships that enabled the species to survive, men created the bigger networks of shallow relationships, less necessary for survival but eventually enabling culture to flourish. The gradual creation of wealth, knowledge, and power in the men’s sphere was the source of gender inequality. Men created the big social structures that comprise society, and men still are mainly responsible for this.
What seems to have worked best for cultures is to play off the men against each other, competing for respect and other rewards that end up distributed very unequally. Men have to prove themselves by producing things the society values. They have to prevail over rivals and enemies in cultural competitions, which is probably why they aren’t as lovable as women.
The essence of how culture uses men depends on a basic social insecurity. This insecurity is in fact social, existential, and biological. Built into the male role is the danger of not being good enough to be accepted and respected and even the danger of not being able to do well enough to create offspring.
The basic social insecurity of manhood is stressful for the men, and it is hardly surprising that so many men crack up or do evil or heroic things or die younger than women. But that insecurity is useful and productive for the culture, the system.
Again, I’m not saying it’s right, or fair, or proper. But it has worked. The cultures that have succeeded have used this formula, and that is one reason that they have succeeded instead of their rivals.
From "Is There Anything Good About Men?", a talk given to the American Psychological Association in 2007 by Roy F. Baumeister.
Saturday, April 24, 2010
Given that there is no more degrading or brutal crime that can be commited against a Woman than Rape, a lot about how much a society values Women can be seen in how that society treats convicted Rapists.
In the glory days of the Roman Republic Rape was a capital crime, as it is today in the Islamic World.
Only in a culture so utterly depraved that Men value sex over the honor of their people's own Women could the death penalty be barred for Rapists.
And yet today in the Non-Islamic Countries this perverse pattern is exactly what we see.
Perhaps this is why the 57 Non-Islamic Countries with data available average to having an extremely high Rape Rate of 0.17 per Thousand People Per Year.
While in sharp contrast the eight Islamic Countries with data available average to having a FAR lower Rape Rate of 0.016 per Thousand People Per Year.
That means the Rape Rate in the average Islamic Country with data available is TEN TIMES LOWER than in Non-Islamic Countries with data available.
This is not at all surprising to people like me who actually see past the mindless lies of Feminism.
When a Woman is Single she is far more likey to be Raped, and thanks to a combination of Polygamy and strong penalties against sexual immorality, Islamic Countries have remarkably healthy and robust Marriage Rates.
Also, there's strong evidence that legalizing Pornography will increase the Rape Rate of a Country, and Pornography is under far tighter controls in the Islamic World than it is outside it.
Lucy Skipping Writes:
Is there any statistical evidence that proves beyond doubt that pornography is a major causative factor in rape and sex crime?
There is strong statistical evidence indicating that the legalization of Pornography was a major factor in increasing the Rape Rate.
Taking the two Pro-Pornography Supreme Court rulings that correlated with reduced fertility, I put them in a Multiple Regression with the American Rape Rate from 1960 to 2008.
What I found was that Jacobellis v. Ohio was 34% correlated with Rape, while the ruling in Stanley v. Georgia, that made it legal for men to possess whatever pornographic materials they desired, had a remarkably strong correlation of 68.6% with the Forcible Rape Rate.
Suggestively, with Stanley v. Georgia and the Murder Rate there was a far smaller correlation of 27.3%. And even with a crime like Aggravated Assault that is notable for having a remarkably strong correlation of 93% with the Rape Rate, Stanley v. Georgia only had a 54.9% correlation.
That’s incredible when you get down to it! Two crimes almost exactly correlated with each other, and yet with the Rape Rate there’s an extra 14 points of correlation with the key Pro-Pornography Supreme Court ruling.
The one tailed P Value on the significance of the difference between the two correlations, one for Stanley v. Georgia and Rape and the other for Stanley v. Georgia and Aggravated Assault, is .1357.
That’s much closer to statistical significance than you ever would’ve expected for two variables more than 90% correlated with each other.
This indicates that there’s something special about the relationship between Stanley v. Georgia and Rape that is lacking in its relationship other crimes.
Another Supreme Court ruling that appears to have had an important impact on Rape is Coker v. Georgia, which abolished the Death Penalty for Rape.
Whether a year came before or after Coker v. Georgia explains a staggering 77% of the variation in the Rape Rate from 1960 to 2008.
And when we put Jacobellis v. Ohio, Stanley v. Georgia, and Coker v. Georgia into a Multiple Regression with the Rape Rate as the Dependant Variable, we find that:
Jacobellis v. Ohio explains 6.2% of the variation in Rape.
Stanley v. Georgia explains 31.4% of the variation in Rape.
Coker v. Georgia explains 51.5% of the variation in Rape.
It should also be noted that since 1960 the average year after Coker v. Georgia has had a Rape Rate DOUBLE the average for the years before Coker v. Georgia.
Friday, April 23, 2010
Thursday, April 22, 2010
(Note: This is an excerpt from a profoundly important essay by John Michael Greer.)
What would you say, dear reader, if I told you that I’ve come up with a way to eliminate unemployment in the United States – yes, even in the face of the current economic mess? What if I explained that it would also improve the effective standard of living of many American families and decrease their income tax burdens?
And that it would also increase our economic resilience and sustainability, and simultaneously cause a significant decrease in the amount of automobile traffic on America’s streets and highways? Would you be all for it?
No, dear reader, you wouldn’t. Permit me to explain why.
Right now, many two-income families with children in the United States are caught in a very curious economic bind. I haven’t been able to find statistics, but I personally know quite a few families for whom the cost of paid child care and one partner’s costs for commuting, business clothes, and all the other expenses of employment, approaches or even exceeds the take-home pay of one partner. Factor in the benefits of shifting to a lower tax bracket, and for a great many of these families, becoming a single-income family with one partner staying out of the paid work force would actually result in an increase in disposable income each month.
This is even before factoring in the financial elephant in the living room of the old one-income family: the economic benefits of the household economy. It’s only in the last half dozen decades that the home has become nothing more than a center of consumption; before then, it was a place where real wealth was produced. It costs a great deal less to buy the raw materials for meals than to pick up something from the supermarket deli on the way home from work, as so many people do these days, or to fill the pantry and the fridge with prepackaged processed food; it costs a great deal less to buy yarn than to purchase socks and afghans of anything like the quality a good knitter can make; it costs a great deal less to grow a good fraction of a family’s vegetables in a backyard garden than to buy them fresh at the grocery, if you can get them at all.
The difference in each case – and examples like this could be multiplied manyfold – is made by the household economy. Economists like to dismiss the household economy as inefficient, but it’s worth remembering that “efficiency” in current economic jargon is defined as labor efficiency – that is an economic process is considered more efficient if it uses less human labor, no matter how wildly inefficent it is in any other sense. Economists also like to dismiss the household economy because it lacks economies of scale, and here they’re on firmer ground. Still, there’s another factor that more than counterbalances this; much of the value of an employee’s labor – as much, as Marxists like to remind us, as the employer can get away with taking – goes to support his employer, while all of the value produced by labor in the household market remains with the family and is used directly, without being mediated through the money economy.
This is why, until quite recently, at least half the adult members of most families, aside from the urban poor, worked in the household economy instead of the money economy. It’s also why a grandparent or two or an unmarried aunt so often found a place in the family setting. This had very little to do with charity; an extra pair of hands that could be employed in the household economy was a significant economic asset to most families. One of the advantages of this, of course, is that elderly people continued to have a valued and productive role in their families and communities, instead of being paid to go away and do nothing until they die, as so many of them are today.
None of these things are any less possible today than they were in the 1920s, or for that matter the 1820s. As a former househusband, I can say this on the basis of personal experience; my wife and I found that we had a better standard of living on her bookkeeper’s salary alone, with a thriving full time household economy, than we had earlier on two salaries with only the scraps of a household economy the two of us could manage after work and commuting. I came in for a certain amount of derision for making that choice, of course, though it’s only fair to say that I got off very lightly in comparison to the abuse leveled, mostly by women, at those women I knew who made a similar decision.
Now of course that touches on one of the most volatile issues touching on the household economy, the politics of gender. For complex cultural reasons, a great many feminists in the 1960s and 1970s came to believe that working for one’s family in the household economy was a form of slavery, while working for an employer in the money economy – often under conditions that were even more exploitative – was a form of liberation. Now it’s certainly true that assigning people to participation in the household economy by gender was unfair, but it’s equally true that assigning them to participation in the money economy on the same basis was no better; for every woman whose talents were wasted in a housewife’s role, there was arguably a man whose life would have been much happier and more productive had he had the option of working full time in the household economy.
Feminism might usefully have challenged the relative social status assigned to the household and money economies, and pressed for a revaluation of work and gender that could have thrown open a much broader field of possibilities to people of both genders; and in fact some thoughtful steps were taken in this direction by a few perceptive thinkers in the movement. In general, though, that turned out to be the road not taken. Instead, the great majority of women simply accepted the social value given to participation in the money economy, demanded access to it for themselves, and got it. In the process, for most Americans, the household economy collapsed, or survived only as a dowdy sort of hobby practiced by the insufficiently fashionable.
Let’s grant at the outset, therefore, that there’s no particular reason why people of one gender ought to be more active in the household economy than people of the other; let’s assume that a great many men will make the choice I did, and work full time in the household economy while the women in their lives work full time for a paycheck. On that basis, is there a point to two-income families shifting gears and becoming families that combine one cash income with a productive household economy? Of course there is, and now more than ever.
To begin with, as already mentioned, a significant number of families with children would gain an immediate boost in their disposable income each month by taking the kids home from daycare, giving up the second commute (and in some cases, the second car as well), dropping the other expenses that come with paid employment, and taking a wild downhill ride through the income tax brackets. A great many more would find that when these benefits are combined with the real wealth produced by the household economy, they came out well ahead. Even those who simply broke even would be likely to find that differences in quality, though hard to measure in strictly economic terms, would make the change more than worthwhile.
Now take a moment to think of the effects on community and society. Take a significant amount of the workforce out of paid employment, and two things happen: first, unemployment rates go down, and second, competition among employers for the remaining workers tends to drive wages up. Some sectors of the economy would be negatively affected, to be sure; sales of convenience foods would decrease, and so would employment in the day care industry, among others; still, these industries would be affected by the contraction in workforce numbers along with all the others, and those employees who needed to find a job elsewhere would be entering a job market where their chances would be much better than they are at present. There would need to be some adjustments, especially to retirement arrangements, but those are going to have to happen fairly soon anyway.
Finally, factor in the impact of such a change on the resilience and sustainability of society. A nation in which a very large fraction of the workforce is insulated from the money economy, and produces a diverse array of goods and services at home for local consumption using relatively simple tools, is a nation that’s much better prepared to face the economic turmoil of the end of the age of cheap oil than a nation where nearly everyone depends for their income, as well as for the goods and services they use every day, on the global economy.
A nation in which, let’s say, 30% fewer people have to drive to work than they do today is much better prepared to face the price spikes and shortages that will almost inevitably affect gasoline and other petroleum products in the years to come. A nation in which doing things for yourself again has a recognized social value is much better prepared for a future in which we will have to do much more for ourselves than most people can imagine just now.
So when can we expect the return of the single-income family to become an element of constructive plans for the post-peak future? When will Transition Town programs, let’s say, match up the experienced elderly with novice househusbands and housewives who want to learn how to cook, sew, can, garden, and knit? When will high-profile liberal couples start throwing parties to announce that one member of the pair is quitting paid employment, so that the poor have an easier job market and a better chance at upward mobility? When will people aggressively lobby their congressflacks to get a sizable income tax deduction and special Social Security arrangements for families with one income?
Let’s just say I’m not going to hold my breath. In fact, dear reader, I’m quite confident that even if you belong to that large group of married couples with children who could increase your disposable income by giving up that second job, you won’t do it; in fact, you won’t even run the numbers to see whether it would work for you – and the reason you won’t is that you’re so mesmerized by that monthly check of $2000 a month take-home, or whatever it happens to be, that you can’t imagine giving it up even if you have to spend $2200 a month to get it. That is to say, dear reader, that if you don’t think in terms of whole systems, the fact that the system costs of that second job might just outweigh the benefits will be as incomprehensible to you as a computer would have been to a medieval peasant.
The extraordinary blindness to whole systems that pervades our collective consciousness these days is a fairly recent thing – as recently as the 1970s, talk about system costs got far fewer blank stares and non sequiturs than it does today – and I doubt it will last long in historical terms, if only because the hard edge of Darwinian selection separates adaptive cultural forms from maladaptive ones with the same ruthlessness it applies to genetics. While it remains in place, it will likely cause a great deal of damage, but that in itself will tend to accelerate its replacement with some less dysfunctional habit of thought.
Ironically, the Theodore Roethke poem with which I started this post offers a cogent reminder of that. It begins:
I wake to sleep, and take my waking slow.
I feel my fate in what I cannot fear.
I learn by going where I have to go.
We will all, I think, learn a great deal by going where we have to go during the lean and challenging years to come. The hope that we might manage to learn a thing or two in advance of that journey is understandable enough, and the thing has happened now and then in history; still, for reasons already discussed, that hope seems very frail to me just now.
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Interesting post. So are you suggesting that Iran either has or is about to have nukes, and is thus able to wage war by proxy against Israel by sending scuds to Hezbollah via Syria?
Also, I noticed that one of the labels for this post is the Trilateral Commission. How does it figure into this?
I'm suggesting Iran will soon have Nukes, and thus are preparing to wage a proxy war with the use of their Hezbollah allies.
Hezbollah are probably the strongest fighting force the Muslims have, and thus Iran feels comfortable starting the preparations for Proxy War even before getting Nukes.
“Also, I noticed that one of the labels for this post is the Trilateral Commission. How does it figure into this?”
The Trilateral Commission was founded by Brzezinski, and it’s Brzezinski and his Trilateral Commission allies who dominate the Obama administration’s foreign policy, and who’ve strongly guided Obama towards a policy intended to enable Iran’s Nuclear Ambitions.
You mentioned before that people like Brzezinski, Obama, and others actually support Iran becoming nuclear.
But why would they support this if it, as you demonstrate, gives Iran the ability to wage proxy war?
The basic issue here is that the Israelis have an interest in the Muslims being crushed, so they can have all of Palestine, while the Chinese have an interest in the Muslims being crushed, so they can have all the Persian Gulf oil.
For this reason ever since Chinese military spending reached a certain threshold, a fundamental dynamic in the Middle East has been pushing Israel and China toward a military alliance.
Really, the only thing holding them back has been the American presence in the Middle East acting as a deterrent.
But this deterrent clearly has an expiration date. Even if Rand or Ron Paul aren’t elected President in 2012, it clearly has an expiration date.
What Brzezinski wants is not only for Iran to get Nuclear Weapons, but for Iran to weaken Israel to a point where China’s perception of the IDF’s usefulness as an ally against Muslims would be destroyed.
For this reason giving Iran the ability to wage proxy war is actually a major part of the point.
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Monday, April 19, 2010
If any Black was the victim of racism in recent times it was Michael Vick. But it wasn't Anti-Black racism, it was Anti-Human racism.
"Unlike any other legal industry or enterprise, the NFL has a long history of employing convicted rapists, wife-beaters, armed robbers, attempted murderers, drunk drivers and the like. The authors of 'Pros and Cons: The Criminals Who Play in the NFL,' Jeff Benedict and Don Yeager, found that at least one in five -- and probably one in four -- NFL players has been convicted of a serious crime. Benedict, in his 'Public Heroes, Private Felons: Athletes and Crimes Against Women,' found that from 1986 through 1996, over 425 professional and college athletes were publicly reported for violent crimes against women, and 199 such athletes were charged with physical or sexual acts against women.
The NFL knows about these crimes, doing extensive background checks, using former FBI agents, prior to its annual player draft. But, any great player that's accused or convicted of a crime, still gets to play in the pro league, unless he's otherwise occupied with current incarceration. Alluding to the losing Detroit Lions' luck in avoiding criminal players, new team President/CEO Matt Millen said, 'You need a couple of rats' in the locker room. NFL coach Dick Vermeil drafted Ryan Tucker, after his college career of beating Bryan Boyd so badly that Boyd was read his last rites and his mother was asked about donating his organs. When confronted about this, Vermeil said, 'Character guys get in fights,' and that he likes players who can 'finish' a fight.
And there's a whole list of convicted criminal players like this, from Lewis to Lawrence Phillips to Carruth to Christian Peter to Corey Dillon to Jumbo Elliot, who've been, or still are, tolerated -- in fact, promoted -- in the NFL. It's amazing, given the NFL's relentless self-promotion as a family product.
Incredibly, a 1984 felony conviction for sexual assault and false imprisonment made former Dallas Cowboys linebacker 'Hollywood' Henderson ineligible for elected office, but not for the NFL or its Hall of Fame. "
-"Sunday's Super Criminal Bowl", by Debbie Schlussel
But the American Dog Worshippers just couldn't abide the thought of Michael Vick taking dogs that were bred to fight other dogs, and using them to fight other dogs. They couldn't abide the thought of a Human Being killing a few Animals once they were past their use, a practice followed by EVERY Animal Shelter that has ever existed.
That was "going too far".
Michael Vick was the victim of an American Media and Populace so disgusting, two-faced and morally warped that it's a wonder he kept his composure in the face of their mountainous hypocrisy.
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Lisa: I never realized before, but some Itchy & Scratchy cartoons send the message that violence against animals is funny.
Bart: They what? Cartoons don't have messages, Lisa. [Moves toward door.] They're just a bunch of hilarious stuff you know, like people getting hurt and stuff, stuff like that. [gets slammed behind the door by Homer]
"They call this war a cloud over the land. But they made the weather and then they stand in the rain and say 'It's raining!'" -Ruby Thewes
"Our wills and fates do so contrary run
That our devices still are overthrown;
our thoughts are ours, their ends none of our own."
-The Player King
Thursday, April 15, 2010
I remember shortly after the World Trade Center attacks there was this old CIA hand they had on the MacNeil-Lehrer Newshour.
He was involved in funding, arming, and training the Mujahideen who had defeated the Russians, and then became the core of Al Qaeda and to a lesser extent the Taliban.
Curiousity must have overcome the host, so she asked him what the Mujahideen were like.
A deeply wistful smile came to his face. A few seconds later he barely put some effort into suppressing it, then answering the question in a not overly interesting manner.
It was the smile which was memorable, primarily because of the chronological context of it, and that he was on National Television when he smiled it.
General X Asks:
From an offensive standpoint, what's the use of Nuclear Weapons for a Country like Iran when they'll never get to use them? It seems unlikely that they'd need them for defensive purposes at this point, considering the weakness of America and Israel.
From an offensive standpoint, what was the use of Nuclear Weapons to the Carter Administration?
When a Country has Nuclear Weapons but its rivals don't, it is untouchable even by proxy.
However when two Countries have Nuclear Weapons, as America and Russia had during the 1970's, one may wage war on the other proxy.
On an unrelated note:
Syria denies it gave Hezbollah Scud missiles
Syria warned Thursday that Israel was paving the way for new military action by alleging that that Damascus is providing Scud missiles to the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah.
Israeli defense officials have said they believe Hezbollah has obtained Scud missiles capable of hitting anywhere in Israel and earlier this week, Israeli President Shimon Peres directly accused Damascus of providing the weapons.
If the Lebanese militants have acquired Scuds, it would mark a powerful boost to their arsenal and a breach of a U.N.-brokered cease-fire that ended the 2006 war between Hezbollah and Israel.
Israel has not offered proof to back up the claim, and Syria's Foreign Ministry strongly denied the charge, saying it "believes that Israel aims through these claims to further strain the atmosphere in the region" It added that Israel could be setting the stage for a possible "aggression in order to run away from the requirements of a just and comprehensive peace."
Speaking earlier this week, Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak insisted his country has no aggressive intentions.
"We expect and recommend that everyone keep the current calm but as we've said, the introduction of systems that disturb the balance endanger the stability and the calm," he said.
The allegation comes at a sensitive time in U.S.-Syrian relations.
Washington has reached out to Syria in recent months by nominating the first U.S. ambassador to Damascus since 2005 and sending top diplomats to meet with President Bashar Assad. Washington is hoping to draw Syria away from Iran and the Islamic groups that Iran backs — Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Palestinian Islamic group Hamas in the Gaza Strip.
The U.S. said Wednesday it was "increasingly concerned" about the transfer of more sophisticated weaponry to Hezbollah.
Hezbollah leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah has said his militants have more than 30,000 rockets and are capable of hitting anywhere in Israel. Those claims match Israeli intelligence assessments.
Some Scud missiles have a range of hundreds of miles (kilometers), meaning that guerrillas could launch them from deeper inside Lebanon and farther from Israel's reach. Scuds can carry a warhead of up to 1 ton, making them far larger than the biggest rockets previously in Hezbollah's arsenal, and are also more accurate.
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Family Policy and Population issues
Hungary’s population levels are at crisis point, the chief reason for this being drastic population shrinkage, coupled with an ageing populace. We also occupy the bottom rungs of Europe from the point of view of life-expectancy. The causes for this may be found in society’s general poor state of health, the plummeting levels of health service provision, and the growth in unhealthy lifestyles.
This population crisis has been exacerbated by the destructive behaviour of the political establishment. Jobbik’s goal is to slow, then halt, then gradually reverse the rate of population decline, through the use of a coherent family and social policy; so that the nation grows. To achieve this will first and foremost require the promotion and protection of the institution of the family, particularly from attacks by a liberalism whose objective is to put the family unit on an equal footing with every conceivable alternative living arrangement or deviant lifestyle.
For this reason Jobbik plans the introduction of “family taxation,” and the formation of an institute for stay-at-home mothers; while also making it easier for those women who chose to be mothers to return to work if they so decide. Our reform of the pensions’ system will place pension provision on a more secure foundation, and it will promote the having of children, while also directly facilitating mutual responsibility between generations.
Supporting families, and family taxation: By means of an eligibility-determined family taxation scheme, the state will be able to alleviate the financial strain of child rearing by decreasing the combined income tax burden of the wage earners within a household; in direct proportion to the number of dependents in that household. Our objective is that the convoluted and non-transparent child-benefit /child-support / child-premium system be eventually replaced by a Stay-at-Home Mothers’ Subsidy; [This is important partly from the standpoint of empowering the fertility of the more traditional leaning Hungarian Women] for which entitlement would be determined in accordance with a proven history of employment, for a specific period prior to the child’s birth.
Employment conditions for working mothers: We would promote child-friendly workplaces and the removal of the obstacles that exist for mothers who wish to work. [This is very wise when you consider that the European Countries with the highest birthrates are the ones like France which make it easier for working women to be mothers.] The Movement for a Better Hungary also intends on stimulating the employment prospects of working mothers, and the re-employment of women after they have had children, by introducing a 20% reduction-per-child in the tax due from job providers in the form of the “Employer’s Contribution.” [This is absolutely brilliant: Give Women who contribute more to the future of the Race an economic advantage over Women who don't, and an improved capacity to leverage X hours of work into X amount of money.] We also plan on increasing nursery places so they are capable of meeting demand. [This is also important, and imitates the sort of subsidized childcare policies that have worked well in France.]
Restructuring the pension system: We will abolish compulsory private pensions and lead the pension’ system back towards a state arrangement, in which individual account-holding would nevertheless remain. Both the pension supplements received by individuals for their service as senior officials under the one-party state, and baseless disability payments and early-retirement allowances, will be reformed in order raise the level of the basic state pension. We will also recommend the introduction of parental support annuities, which would mean, a portion of the income-tax deducted from working adults going towards their parents’, or guardians’, pension provision. [It would provide a profound incentive for people to have children if children were required by law to help provide for the retirement of the specific Men and Women who gave them life.] The state must also recognize the sacrifices made by women who raise children whether they choose to work or not, which is why we would always guarantee early-retirement options for mothers.
Income Tax, family taxation, VAT and National Insurance contributions: An unmanageably complicated and convoluted system of taxation and National Insurance [US English: “Social Security”] has practically made the law-abiding earning of a living virtually impossible in Hungary. We will greatly simplify taxation, and would retain a banded tax system, while also increasing its progressive component; in addition we would also raise the current tax band limits. Furthermore, Jobbik will introduce a voluntary scheme of family taxation, while removing all VAT on goods and services essential to child rearing. [This sort of thing would be very valuable both from the standpoint of reducing the economic incentive that exists to not have children, and just as importantly for how it would send a message to people that bearing and caring for children is an activity of such value that it's been given precedence over other Human Pursuits.]
Cultural issues and Media policy
Culture is not an antiquated or defunct entity, it is rather the wisdom of the centuries, and millennia. Seeking to protect one’s national culture is not indicative of some sort of reactionary dwelling in the past, it is instead, going into the future while remaining conscious of one’s responsibilities to the past. Today Hungary practically exists under a form of Liberal dictatorship. When it comes to the fundamental issue of cultural awareness therefore, Jobbik considers it its duty to overturn this unhealthy, virtual autocracy, of opinion; so as to give an opportunity for the creation of a cultural life which finally allows national values, Hungarian society’s values, to be taken into account. The last decades’ intentional Liberal destruction of our national consciousness, has proven itself incapable of creating anything other than an emotionally damaged, even physically injured, society; given its inability to provide lasting values (only their denigration) to either individuals or communities.
Jobbik’s most important principles with respect to culture are: the strengthening of Hungarian national self-knowledge, the acceptance by the state of a greater responsibility in the dissemination of culture, the abolition of the Liberal cultural-dictatorship, the reinvigoration of rural cultural life, an increase of the cultural contribution of civic organisations in society, the formulation of new legislation in the interests of creating principled public-service media outlets, the termination of the existing franchise agreements of the current commercial television stations [Purer proof than this proposal could hardly be found of a group of people getting why the West is in decline], the development of balanced news reporting, and the start of the introduction of modern and effective media regulation beginning with the taxation of advertising. [Can you believe there's actually a place where the Right doesn't worship Advertising, and instead shows an understanding of the need to put visual manifestations of Capitalism under serious restriction?]
Sunday, April 11, 2010
If I liked Punky Brewster as much now as when I was a kid, I'd probably be arrested.
A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single thought.
Oz never gave anything to the Tin Man that he didn't already have.
In ancient times, a Man who found 15 year old girls most attractive would have had more children than a Man who found 30 year olds more attractive nearly every time. A 15 year old girl is more fertile, has more eggs in her, and has more fertile years ahead of her.
Thomas Jefferson made a big to do about Men making Governments, and not Governments making Men. But the British Government remained oddly unmoved by this argument, for reasons relating to its hunger for tax revenues.
Saturday, April 10, 2010
Friday, April 9, 2010
What is relative truth, and how is it different than absolute truth?
Relative truth is your personal truth. Absolute truth is this power trip the oppressive Eurocentric Manocracy puts on us, just so we’ll follow all their meaningless and arbitrary rules.
There is no Absolute Truth, only Relative Truth.
But how can you say there‘s no Absolute Truth as though it‘s the Absolute Truth, when you say there‘s no Absolute Truth?
I do not “know” that there is no Absolute Truth. The absence of Absolute Truth is rather my Relative Truth, or Personal Truth.
So you do not believe there to be an absence of Absolute Truth in the Universe?
I do in fact believe in such an absence. However, I do not believe my own belief to necessarily be correct.
But that means you don’t actually believe it!
I never said I believe my belief to be the Absolute Truth. Rather, I merely asserted that I believe it to be my Personal Truth.
In other words, I believe I believe that there is no Absolute Truth.
That’s all I’m saying here.
So is it an Absolute Truth that you believe yourself to believe that there is no Absolute Truth?
But then there’s an Absolute Truth! Namely the Absolute Truth that you believe that you believe that there is no Absolute Truth.
I retract my last “Yes.” Actually I have no way of knowing whether it is the Absolute Truth that I believe I believe in the absence of Absolute Truth.
But if you have no way of knowing if you believe it, there’s no basis for even making the statement that you believe it.
You are correct.
I have no basis to say I believe in the nonexistence of Absolute Truth. Further, I have no basis to say I believe I believe in the nonexistence of Absolute Truth.
I don’t even have a basis to say I believe I believe I believe in the nonexistence of Absolute Truth.
For all I know I could not believe in Absolute Truth, and by the same token I might believe in it.
The fact that I know nothing about anything, even my own mental states, shows the complete inability of Mankind to achieve any real knowledge of that you call Absolute Truth, even if we could be confident in its preexisting extantness.
Well, either that or it shows you are a complete and utter idiot, far outside the mainstream of the Human Race.
So now you’re saying I’m a subhuman? You know what, I bet you want to lock me in cage in a Concentration Camp, I bet you want to oppress me, I bet you want to starve me for days on end...
The Rest of This Exchange Was Of No Philosophical Interest.
Golden Dawn's website is found here:
Information on how to donate to Golden Dawn can be found here:
Golden Dawn New York's website is found here:
Thursday, April 8, 2010
Golden Dawn's website is found here:
Information on how to donate to Golden Dawn can be found here:
Golden Dawn New York's website is found here:
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
General X Asks:
Why does the United States Army have Women serving in it, when we all know they're inferior soldiers and distract the Men from fighting?
Because the American Military is controlled by Iraqi Whores who want to avoid being exposed to the unusually high STD rates found in American Men.
General X Asks Another Question:
On a related note, why do so many of my Male Soldiers keep Raping my Female Soldiers? I did the calculations once, and it seems the Rape Rate for Women in the Army is higher than that found in the seething slums of Somalia.
Statsaholic Replies Further:
Females are herd creatures. In civilian life there are enough Women that they can band together for safety. This is important because Rape will only occur when the Rapist to Potential Victim Ratio (R/PV Ratio) is enough in favor of the Rapist(s).
In contrast to civilian life, in the Army Females are outnumbered enough that they constantly find themselves in situations where their sex is greatly outnumbered by Men.
Thus all it takes for them to be Raped is for enough of those Men who outnumber them to be inclined to commit Rape.
So often Men are deterred from commiting Rape because they realize that if they start Raping Female #1, Female #2 will run and get help.
But in the Army, more often than not there will be no Female #2.
Now some may doubt that a situation where Men greatly outnumber Women will lead to the Men cooperating to Rape her.
But two things have to be taken into acccount:
1. Even if it doesn't, the biased Sex Ratio in the Army still leads to Women Soldiers spending far more time alone with strange Men than they ever would in a subsculture where Women were closer to 50% of the population.
2. Sometimes Men greatly outnumbering a Woman WILL lead to them cooperating to Rape her, at least in the brutalized subculture associated with the US Army's Imperial Excursions:
Victim: Gang-Rape Cover-Up by U.S., Halliburton/KBR
A Houston, Texas woman says she was gang-raped by Halliburton/KBR coworkers in Baghdad, and the company and the U.S. government are covering up the incident.
Jami Leigh Jones, now 22, says that after she was raped by multiple men at a KBR camp in the Green Zone, the company put her under guard in a shipping container with a bed and warned her that if she left Iraq for medical treatment, she'd be out of a job.
"Don't plan on working back in Iraq. There won't be a position here, and there won't be a position in Houston," Jones says she was told.
In a lawsuit filed in federal court against Halliburton and its then-subsidiary KBR, Jones says she was held in the shipping container for at least 24 hours without food or water by KBR, which posted armed security guards outside her door, who would not let her leave. Jones described the container as sparely furnished with a bed, table and lamp.
Finally, Jones says, she convinced a sympathetic guard to loan her a cell phone so she could call her father in Texas.
"I said, 'Dad, I've been raped. I don't know what to do. I'm in this container, and I'm not able to leave,'" she said. Her father called their congressman, Rep. Ted Poe, R-Texas.
"We contacted the State Department first," Poe told ABCNews.com, "and told them of the urgency of rescuing an American citizen" -- from her American employer.
Poe says his office contacted the State Department, which quickly dispatched agents from the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad to Jones' camp, where they rescued her from the container.
According to her lawsuit, Jones was raped by "several attackers who first drugged her, then repeatedly raped and injured her, both physically and emotionally."
Jones told ABCNews.com that an examination by Army doctors showed she had been raped "both vaginally and anally," but that the rape kit disappeared after it was handed over to KBR security officers.