|
If this is real there is a good chance anyone holding that material ends up dead.
|
|
|
|
You mean like US citizens are more equal than people from other countries?
And what about innocent till proven gulity for all those refugees coming to the south border, that are supposedly all criminals and "very bad people"?
It is absolutely untrue that men are falling behind in all aspects. In truth, women are still second class citizens, even in US. They get paid less, they do more unpaid work like child care and house keeping, they get sexually harassed and raped more and beaten and grabbed by their pussies, they are not fairly represented in politics and corporative environment, the list goes on.
The first part is not on topic or even a valid argument so I am not going to address it. Take it to the appropriate thread and I would be glad to. First of all the word "all" was injected by you and not some thing I said, so I am not sure why you used that word other than to try to attempt to cast my claims as being more extreme than they really are. HAHA, just because you all stand around and reassure each other of your victim hood doesn't make it reality. Women in the USA are the most free privileged women to EVER WALK THE FUCKING FACE OF THE EARTH, and for you not to acknowledge this is a fucking crime. You could literally be placed in any nation anywhere in any other time frame and be WORSE off, but no, women are strong independent victims! Women get paid less because they work fewer hours, shorter shifts, less dangerous jobs, and take lots of time off. You think a barista should make as much a crab fisherman dodging 800lb cages that could crush him on a boat covered in ice in the middle of the ocean? The wage gap has been torn apart for years but feminists such as yourself insist on perpetuating what you MUST know at this point is a lie. Lets look at some stats and you can tell me some more about the poor strong independent woman victim. - Men are 14x more likely to be incarcerated and spend time in prison than women. I am sure women just commit crime at a rate 14x lower than that of men right? - Men are 5-10x more likely to commit suicide in developed nations. It must be all that being on top that is just too much for these men. - Men are much more likely to die earlier in life than women because they hold the majority of dangerous jobs (construction, military, mining etc.) and suffer more stress related diseases such as heart attacks and strokes. - Women have dominated college enrollment and graduation rates since the 1980’s. - Men ages 18-26 must still register for mandatory selective military service in the U.S., but not women. - It is estimated that only 3% of alimony recipients are men. Although middle and upper-class women are equally represented in the work force, they are extracting a whopping 97% of the total alimony and child support payments. - 70% or more of the homeless population is male. Why do I never hear any feminists calling for equality in homelessness? - Men account for more than 95% of all workplace fatalities. but muh wage gap. - Men are discriminated against BY DESIGN through affirmative action. You know there is so much more I think I am going to start a thread just on this topic. You keep believing lies that make you feel better about yourself. The fact is men have had enough, and sooner or later women are going to have to deal with this inequity. Men have been accommodating nearly every whim these feminist movements make even to our own detriment. That time is over. The physical limits of feminist hubris have been reached and things simply can not continue as they have as a matter of logistics. You see freedom and responsibility are inexorably linked, and women seem to have forgotten this law of existence, and want all of the freedom, but none of the responsibility. You have a choice. Start facing reality and negotiate equitable terms, or wait until reality finds you and terms are imposed upon you. |
|
|
|
|
Serious question, when did the proselytizing wing of atheism start? For people who are so against religion, you sure seem to be keen on forming your own.
|
|
|
|
It is starting to come out that Khashoggi may not have even been a journalist... while this doesn't justify any of this it certainly puts the situation in a much different context.
Frankly I am surprised that anyone was duped into any other context. But yeah, we don't want pretend-civilized guys like the Saudis killing in the mode of ISIS. They do need to pretend to be proper when dealing with the pretend journalists. Well personally I figured he was a spy acting as a journalist, but apparently he never even had a job at the place he supposedly worked at so ... The whole narrative that he was killed to hold down the press is a totally false narrative now on any level of perception. |
|
|
|
The difference is that they are dying in custody now and children are being tortured in detention facilities. We have video showing the abuse, video showing the destruction of water, and the body count. The evidence is piling up.
So what about the 8 year old boy who died last week?
Oh please do post this "evidence" that is "piling up". Torture now? How quickly are you going to be scaling back that claim and then swearing it was just "hyperbole" when you get called out on it like when you claim ICE killed that little girl to punish people for crossing and send a message? That's not hyperbole btw, that is an accusation of genocide, but not like you give a fuck about an honest analysis of anyone you disagree with. Ooooo they kicked jugs of water over. You know what they are more humanitarian than you are, because people like you convince these poorly prepared people that they should cross that dangerous desert because they think they can get in. Why would you take culpability for all the lives YOU caused to be lost by encouraging people to make that dangerous and illegal journey. Also thanks to the freakout over the supposed separation of families (which was not new under Trump) designed to protect crossing children from CHILD ABUSERS, they now see bringing children with them (theirs or some one else's) as an exploit and an easy way to gain entry. So in effect you have now given these people direct incentive to drag children, often not even their own, through the fucking desert. Good job. You keep crying about some water jugs though while you totally ignore your own idiotic crimes. |
|
|
|
Male Feminist Ends Life After False Accusation During Women's March https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=osjDb4bjQQwConsidering that men and boys are falling behind by practically every metric, when will we be "equal" enough? There are very good reasons we have made the standard "innocent until proven guilty", but for some reason that is irrelevant when it comes to men's rights. Is there a point at which women will ever achieve their goal of equality, or does this have to turn into an open supremacy movement before people will stop it? |
|
|
|
|
It is starting to come out that Khashoggi may not have even been a journalist... while this doesn't justify any of this it certainly puts the situation in a much different context.
|
|
|
|
I endorse Karl Lentz, and frankly can't think of anyone else in that area of expertise I would. He truly is an expert. |
|
|
|
So please do explain while Macron "is shitting himself at the moment" and why he would be "dumb" if he wasnt?
Your right, he has nothing to worry about. |
|
|
|
Funny, Trump didn't get us in to Syria, but he is getting us out of it, still he is a warmonger right? Your brain is made of putty ready to be shaped to what ever bullshit makes you feel right on any given day.
Why you mix Syria and Iraq here? USA interest for Syria is at this moment very low, and Trump is decide to withdraw military forces from there, why he not make the same move in Iraq? Your comment about my brain is a very uncivilized form of communication, and just shows something about you as person... Because he is the first president in a long time to actually REDUCE wars not increase them, but hey who cares about peace right? Not like this is a demonstration of his will to stop meddling in the middle east or anything... no he can only be a warmonger because the head in the glowing talkey box told me so. Get yourself some principles first then we can talk about being civilized. |
|
|
|
And as predicted, the Socialists are trying to come in, take credit, and hijack the movement just as they did at Occupy Wallstreet and countless other "Spring" movements. Unless France gets rid of Macron and his policy set France is quickly going to enter 3rd world status. Learn history people. https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-12-30/macron-announces-crackdown-tax-avoiding-executivesYes, chase out all the people who are fueling the already overtaxed industries in favor of even more entitlement programs while maintaining nearly limitless immigration. What could go wrong? These industrial leaders will just leave to other nations with better terms. This is why globalism is being pushed so hard, because under globalism you will have no place to escape the malevolent international technocratic overlords and their dictates. |
|
|
|
snip
Don't deviate. What your previous postings seem to say is that joining the EU was the single decision of the president, which it clearly wasn't. It has gone through all legal instances of the country and even through referendum, which was not required by law. The quote you just posted adds nothing to your argumentation. Also if 50% + 1 vote it not enough, where do you put the limit? 60 % ? 80% ? 100% ? People tend do disagree. Doing so you kill evolution & progress. Sure that part of the EU agreement technically had a referendum, but if it does not accurately represent an actual majority of the people who does it serve? The other problem is now the EU just dictates to its members, not its members dictating how thew organization runs. It has become an unaccountable and disconnected bureaucracy, as if the unaccountable national governments aren't bad enough on their own. My point is a 1% margin in science is well within a usual standard deviation for error (intentional or otherwise), which means it might or might not actually be an accurate mandate. That's why I make the distinction. Anyways it doesn't matter. The EU is simply walking around like a zombie at this point waiting for some one to put it out of its misery in its current bureaucratic form. |
|
|
|
Funny you don't consider it dictatorial to join the EU on a presidential mandate, but it is to leave it.
Which president unilateraly decided to join the EU please? In which country? I have no clue what you are refering to. In france the Maastricht traitee has been signed by the senate and the conseil constitutionnel. It wasn't the single decision of the executive. It also has been accepted by referendum in 1992 by 51.04% of the votes. "On September 1992, a referendum in France only narrowly supported the ratification of the treaty, with 50.8% in favour. This narrow vote for ratification in France, known at the time as the ‘petite oui’, led Jacques Delors to comment that, ‘Europe began as an elitist project in which it was believed that all was required was to convince the decision-makers. That phase of benign despotism is over.' [7]" And the phase of malignant despotism begins! So a mandate of about 1% margin? I am sure there was no voter fraud going on there either right? It gets pretty easy to hide fraud in those kinds of margins. |
|
|
|
Trump is finally visited a war zone, if we can call Iraq a war zone. In that country, people die every day but in most cases from car bombs which are actually sect violence approved by the occupation forces. Trump even take his charming wife in this war zone and they have good time there by motivating their troops to continue their fight against terror. Since they defeated ISIS and Al-Qaeda, do they still look for weapons of mass destruction or just working on safe oil export from Iraq? The view from a different angle, Trump also caused a minor diplomatic incident - but we all know Iraq is just one more playground for USA, and they play by their own rules. https://thehill.com/policy/defense/422933-iraqi-lawmakers-criticize-trumps-surprise-visit-as-violation-of-diplomaticFunny, Trump didn't get us in to Syria, but he is getting us out of it, still he is a warmonger right? Your brain is made of putty ready to be shaped to what ever bullshit makes you feel right on any given day. |
|
|
|
France is not a dictatorship. It's not like the president can just say that the country will be leaving the Union.
But it is ok if they do this to join the union right  It's not about joining or leaving. It's just not how it works Edit: at least in France and most democracies which is a criteria to actually join the EU. Oh NOW its not about joining or leaving xD Funny you don't consider it dictatorial to join the EU on a presidential mandate, but it is to leave it. |
|
|
|
France is not a dictatorship. It's not like the president can just say that the country will be leaving the Union.
But it is ok if they do this to join the union right |
|
|
|
|
I think the rest of the world takes our media more seriously than we do in the USA. The reality of the opinions of the majority of average Americans are not represented by the media, and it is not really a secret to anyone but the most ignorant. I get a feeling the world is basing its opinions of the USA too much on the media sideshow that originates from here, and not enough on what the actual people are working for.
|
|
|
|
Hmmm 2 smart people here debating. I like reading it.
Let's not fall out and put each other down and therefore spoil future interactions between you both.
I will add my view (perhaps incorrect ). Let's see.
So to me it is quite complex ....
However I have to disagree - you are not guilty until proven innocent although kind of tipping the scales toward the accuser heavily in the presentation of what I believe are sensible and reasonable data to the jury to digest. So although you are not guilty they are making it very hard to prove you are innocent even when you are.
I say this still you are not guilty until you prove innocent though because...
If there was only an accusation but 0 evidence or corroborating events from either side then you would be set free as an accused rapist.
That seems therefore you are still innocent until the accuser brings some sensible and corroborating evidence? I mean if i just say you raped me but then no evidence or corroborating events to bring at all I am sure that my rapist will still be set free even if he just says didn't happen with no evidence.
However this does seem a clear attempt to tip the balance in favour of the accuser from where it has been before I believe in a negative way to finding optimal outcome.
They seem to be making it easier for someone to accuse and removing the sensible and credible ways that you could ever defend yourself.
However they will still need something to suggest it was you and that you raped them. Else just their word against your own.
I think the papers would have a field day and destroy the victim if I the rapist could provide a video of them the victim riding on top cumming their brains out then after going nuts in the room saying they were raped and calling the cops. I think that this law will not hold if ever such a thing came about.
I mean it does seem as if they are saying it is down to the accused to prove their innocence and at the same time as saying will remove sensible and reasonable ways that you could prove your innocence. However with no evidence from either side at all then you will be set free I am certain.
I firmly believe if you are giving out punishment then the strong onus should be on the accuser to provide a conclusive and reasonable case that the punishment is deserved. The physical evidence (hospital records) is a strange one. I mean in the case of rape how would they not be relevant ?
Anyway so in this case my (perhaps incorrect view) is that it is a damaging and unfair move but still you will be innocent until it is quite reasonable that you are guilty... so no corroborating evidence from accuser then you will walk.
If I am wrong then that is because i have zero understanding of the law ... however would like to see an analogy or hypothetical scenario that demonstrates this.
Good battle and I really liked this pyramid techshare presented demonstrating the levels of rebuttal during debate. Very good.
I still accept techshare may give me a scenario that makes me see he is correct but just at this minute I am saying still not guilty in light of zero evidence from both sides.
............
although hmmm now I think about such a scenario perhaps it has happened already ....
How do these celebs get banged up for girls they are accused of showing their dick to many many years ago?
I mean there can be little evidence or zero from either side and still they do get banged up sometimes it seem on the weight of a couple of others presumably with zero evidence corroborating their story. Then it does seem if there was no evidence either way and you can get banged up perhaps it is guilty until proven innocent ? or if examining those cases would you find some kind of corroborating and convincing evidence other than some extra people coming with the same accusation with zero evidence?
Does seem worrying though the direction in which things are going....
I think it is a negative change in the law if you are really interested in finding out the truth.
If they keep going in that direct the next step is just saying you are guilty and you can not respond at all and the accuser gets to state his accusation and you have to just be quiet.
Seems I must take extra precautions to not get tagged in the first place and stick to having sex in public for payment from the female for my service. Of course brain control can not be ruled out and with no medical records admissible , witnesses memories contaminated and adjusted and no contact at all with jury or judge (because those magneto hats are out of stock)you will probably just get robbery added to the rape charge...
Then again prison isn't so bad for horny devils I was told... so long as you can manage your sexist, racist, ageist, xenophobic, prejudices, and are not some kind of hypochondriac.
You seem to have run the entire gamut in this statement. If justice were truly blind, a man would be found innocent even if he could not defend himself. Unfortunately though we do not live in a perfect world, and these standards of evidence were (the original ones) created to ensure by no means will an innocent person be convicted. The balance is SUPPOSED to always slightly favor the accused as it was often said "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer". People naturally want to punish the guilty, and most of all in the cases of rape as in some ways it is more brutal than murder. Essentially they are trying to turn the law into the standard that any woman for any reason can accuse and convict a man of rape with zero physical evidence, and this is now manifesting in the legal code itself. Allowing people to send others to prison on their word alone is not an acceptable standard no matter how many rapists it puts away. The problem with that is it makes it really easy for innocents to be accused and swept up into this, and often the circumstances surrounding consensual sex and surrounding rape are often indistinguishable without these vital physical records. In effect a rape might look exactly like a date, and a date might look exactly like a rape. So seeing an innocent man be convicted for rape is not such a far fetched thing when you look at what we are actually working with here. In the VAST MAJORITY of cases the only determining factor is physical evidence such as this legislation seeks to be allowed to be excluded. "I think the papers would have a field day and destroy the victim if I the rapist could provide a video of them the victim riding on top cumming their brains out then after going nuts in the room saying they were raped and calling the cops. I think that this law will not hold if ever such a thing came about." The problem with your logic here is that releasing such a video itself is probably a crime in Canada, and I can assure you rather than rallying behind the man they would rally to lynch him as yet again violating this "poor victim" by exposing her to the world. Canada is being taken over by feminists, and their misandry is now increasingly bleeding though into law. Kind of reminds me of when the feminist Swedish government said that more women walk and more men drive, so lets plow the sidewalks of snow completely before we plow the roads for "equality". As you can imagine it was a complete disaster (who knew you needed roads to get to sidewalks to clear them right)? Plus who is doing all the clearing? Except this law is less funny and more of a total fucking nightmare. |
|
|
|
I am aware of the concept of positive and negative rights. Healthcare does not fit within this definition, as I explained previously because you can not make it a right to be entitled to the goods and services of others, without infringing on the rights of others. There will always be debate on this subject, but healthcare is a resource, not a right. This clarity in definition is important if we are to ever make progress on this topic. Arguably a person could have rights to a fraction of the available resource of healthcare enacted by legislation, similar to the way Alaskans get a yearly check for their fraction of the take on oil drilling. Not my opinion that's a good idea, and it's not what socialists promise, but it is possible. There is a difference between contractual rights and inalienable birth rights. One consents to a contract in order to make it valid by definition. In your example there is excess revenue, and that was designed as an equitable way to distribute it for all residents of the state. No matter how many people move to Alaska, that pool doesn't get any bigger it is simply divided out even more. This gives the illusion of such a program being able to function independently. In reality there is no practical limit to how many can be born or migrate to receive healthcare entitlements, instantly creating a dilemma that infringes on the rights of others. There is never going to be a limitless pool of resources and man hours that can meet the demands of a practically limitless population. |
|
|
|
I am aware of the concept of positive and negative rights. Healthcare does not fit within this definition, as I explained previously because you can not make it a right to be entitled to the goods and services of others, without infringing on the rights of others. There will always be debate on this subject, but healthcare is a resource, not a right. This clarity in definition is important if we are to ever make progress on this topic. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
