Slashdot Mirror
Kim Dotcom Offers $5 Million Bounty To Defeat Extradition
heretic108 (454817) writes "Internet mega-entrepreneur, uber-gamer and now NZ political corruption-buster Kim DotCom has posted a bounty of $5 million to anyone who can dig up any dirt which saves him from extradition to the U.S.. This bounty would be payable not only to government employees, but also to anyone who can retrieve documents clearly proving corruption in the whole prosecution process. 'We are asking for information that proves unlawful or corrupt conduct by the US government, the New Zealand government, spy agencies, law enforcement and Hollywood', Dotcom told website Torrentfreak.com."
The US Government is corrupt in the same way that 1 + 1 = 2. You needn't prove it to know it is true.
and the amscraying.
and I won't be surprised when A LOT of dirt is dug up about the legal system.
As if there are only a handful of people who don't care about intellectual property. Millions would happily do copyright infringement if there were no adverse consequences.
Snowden did it to keep his oath and he's still getting prosecuted. Anyone doing it for money would have no leg to stand on in the view of the people who would go after them. Corruption in the US judiciary system is a very real problem and people who expose it are heroes but this reward is the worst possible way to get people to come forward.
If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
Yup. I hope Kimble rots in jail. He is no freedom fighter, he's just a pirate who wants to keep on making money from piracy.
What about the film industry creating a cartel and using laws to enforce it, stuff like region coding DVD's and BluRay's, encryption, or adding unskippable bs like copyright notices on LEGIT bought products. The "pirates" are obviously giving consumers a better product, but corrupt governments side on the media cartels who refuse to update their business models to the current real world - they are stuck in the last century.
The law has been bought and paid for by the corrupt media cartels. The law is a disgrace, as are our bought corrupt politicians.
Take Nobody's Word For It.
Yea, you should definitely defend the fraudster by claiming it was US government corruption that put him where he is.
He should be let off because his corruption was okay, because someone else was doing it too ... right?
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Hundreds of millions of people _do_ do copyright infringement, because there are typically no adverse consequences.
FTFY.
Not sure where this comes from. This guy was just a Romkidz crook.
If simply being an asshole was just cause to terminate your civil rights, we'd all be behind bars.
As if there are only a handful of people who don't care about intellectual property. Millions would happily do copyright infringement if there were no adverse consequences.
Millions happily do copyright infringement.
Yea, you should definitely defend the fraudster by claiming it was US government corruption that put him where he is.
He should be let off because his corruption was okay, because someone else was doing it too ... right?
If I had to choose between a sleazy fraudster going to jail, and the uncovering (and correction) of government corruption, I'd choose the latter. Government corruption, at least in this particular case, is far scarier to me.
Reminds me of pirate Jean LaFitte.
When the Louisiana governer put a bounty of $500 for LaFitte's head, LaFitte put a bounty of $5,000 on the governor's ear.
Actually that is the hollywood version.
The governor put a bounty of $750 for LaFitte's head and LaFitte doubled it for the governor's head. I like the Hollywood version better.
If it's not yours, don't take it without permission.
If it's not just yours, pay a corrupt legislature to make it exclusively yours, and to make anyone else using it a criminal offense, enforced by the threat of violence.
Fixed that for you.
Before you cheer on somebody like Kim Dotcom:
Kim Dotcom was born Kim Schmitz and has also called himself Kimble, King Kimble the First, Ruler of the Kimpire and Kim Tim Jim Vestor. Kim Schmitz has been convicted of insider trading during the Dotcom boom for his involvement with a struggling German company (through his company "Kimvestor AG"). While he lived in Hong Kong, he started a business ("Trendax") which was supposed to achieve guaranteed gains in stock trading by using artificial intelligence. In Germany however, the country where he was born and gained notoriety, he's mostly famous for ratting out his partners in crime to the lawyer Günter Freiherr von Gravenreuth. Gravenreuth is a name-changer as well: He was born Günter Werner Dörr and later changed his surname to that of his mother. His claim to fame is his business of writing cease and desist letters, mostly regarding copyright and trademark violations. He posed as a teenage girl and solicited game swap partners: When teenage boys offered to trade games, he sent a cease and desist letter. Gravenreuth himself has been convicted for forgery. When he was later also convicted of fraud and had to go to jail (he had wrongfully claimed that he hadn't received a payment and used that to try and seize the domain name of a major German newspaper), he killed himself.
And why does he need to be extradited in the first place? The poor kiwis don't have any courts of their own?
Ezekiel 23:20
buy a nice boat an disappear and dont forget plenty of fishing gear and a shortwave radio-receiver, go find some abandoned Polynesian island with a fresh water source and just retire and forget modern civilization
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
... Do you know absolutely ANYTHING about kim dot com? If he were JUST an asshole, I'd agree with you.
Let me guess, you know nothing about his history and you think megaupload was a legitimate file sharing site?
Being an asshole is one of his better traits.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
If it's not just yours, pay a corrupt legislature to make it exclusively yours, and to make anyone else using it a criminal offense, enforced by the threat of violence.
Well, that's certainly why Kim's rich, yeah.
You're changing the topic. He stated: "Hundreds of millions of people _do_ do copyright infringement, because there are typically no adverse consequences." How does whining about not wanting people to infringe upon copyright challenge that statement?
I didn't take it. They still have all of it they ever had.
"Unheard of means only it's undreamed of yet,
Impossible means not yet done." ~~ Julia Ecklar
.....is well understood and accounted for. It is a useful tool for all governments and corporations.
I am not sure where this idea came about that once upon a time, all people where honest and played by the rules. The only ones who actually play by the rules are the majority of the poor and middle class (aka not as poor as the bottom class), and mostly due to the threat of the gun (for those smart enough to figure out what is going on) or willful ignorance (for those either too fumb to figure it out or too busy trying to survive).
You know what people who are corruption resistant called? Idealists.....they generally have a very short life expectancy than the rest of us if ever they come to power.
Why do you have to pick one or the other?
He's guilty, everyone knows it, why would you willingly let him go? Why not take out both of the criminals instead of exchanging one for the other?
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Why doesn't he just go to some other country that doesn't have an extradition treaty with the USA
EG North Korea, he'd fit right in with all the other Kim's there
The fact is, the fools screwed up in court numerous times and violated people's rights in an attempt to get evidence. Anything they collected in such ways should be null and void.
But you seem to support such thuggery. That's not a surprise, given that you're a prominent troll when it comes to copyright-related issues. You can't resist siding with authoritarians when it comes to copyright, and you even use their propaganda terms and inflammatory language when speaking about it.
You're not someone who can be taken seriously.
Kim DotTard....proving why he's a Tard...
Millions of people would be happy to commit murder, rape, theft, and other crimes if there were no consequences.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Because our justice system is based upon the notion of due process. We've let murderers go because cops bungled far smaller things.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
If there were no consequences, they wouldn't be murder, rape, and theft. The aforementioned are all wrong because of the consequences. If you could murder someone without anyone being harmed, it shouldn't be a criminal offense. That's why murder within video games is not a crime.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
For anyone who doesn't know, Kim Schmitz aka Kimble aka Kim Dotcom has a history of electronic theft, theft of trade secrets, insider trading, fraud, and has narrowly avoided prison in Germany a handful of times. He's was doing it before his "career" took off, hacking into banks from as early as 1995.
Go look into Kimvestor, a shoddy investment firm, and Data Protect. He made his "fortune" selling the latter off at the peak of the dot com bubble. Later he straight up pump-and-dump'd Letsbuyit.com, netting over â1.5m in profit.
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
...I wouldn't count on him actually planning to pay a cent.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Expose the corruption, donate the money to the EFF or one of the legal aid charities.
Are you the kind of asshole who runs around your neighborhood and rats out all your neighbors who don't mow often enough? Maybe you ought to add listening for loud music to your activities, so you can file a noise complaint too, and try to identify the songs while you're at it so you can go running to your pals in the MAFIAA to complain that because you overheard a copyrighted song, their rights were infringed. Even better if you have to trespass to get close enough to identify the songs.
File sharing IS a legitimate activity. In many cases the user doesn't know the copyright status. Shouldn't have to know. But even if it is copyrighted by someone else, and the user knows that and does not have their permission, so what? Last I heard, you can still trade books among your friends, and check out works from the public library. If this activity is illegal, that is reason to change the law, not blow the public's money on futile and damaging policing efforts. Copyright law is against the public interest, and needs drastic reform or abolishment.
Not having to do or help with policing is a basic right. The 4th Amendment has a bit to say on the subject of searches. The police can't just search your home, they have to have probable cause and a warrant. Equally, you shouldn't have to search your own home. The 3rd Amendment might even be applicable. You can't be forced to house a soldier in your home. Seems like you shouldn't have to allow a digital cop program on your servers either. A business based on file storage should not have to bear the burden of checking the copyright status of all the files stored on its servers. Cloud vendors don't have to do that, why should Megaupload?
Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
Actually, they're all wrong because any set of individuals with no cultural background (i.e. no existing morals, ethics, etc.) living in a world where these things may happen to them would feel threatened. Societies always provide protections against these threats: as they form, they group together to protect their members, which quickly becomes the unstructured hunting and killing of threat sources (i.e. kill people or other tribes who kill your clansmen), and eventually laws and police forces and governments.
Other morals and ethics--for example, sexual laws about adultery (we used to stone people to death...) or sex with 14 year olds (this used to be marriage age, and 20-25 year old men would marry 13-14 year old girls and get them pregnant)--evolve culturally. They are not inherent, but not completely baseless: the evolution of our economy has made it harmful for girls to get married or have children at that age, hence the sex thing (as we've considered sex and contraception immoral for cultural reasons, i.e. religion, and so have long associated sex with children).
Consequences are relative. Another person dying is not a consequence unless it particularly affects you: people in California die all the time due to earthquakes, and I don't go offering to let Californians stay in my basement so they won't be crushed by collapsing highways. Killing a person with your bare hands has zero consequences if it doesn't bother you, doesn't affect your future prospects, and doesn't garner retaliation from society.
Most people don't think globally; those of us who do are working by numbers, not by individuals. Nobody has a fully-resolved cause-and-effect engine in his head.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
What is your point? That he was guilty then, so whatever charges the government brings against him now are valid, and no matter how much the government violates standard procedures and illegally obtains evidence, it should be ignored?
1 + X = 2
ftfy.
Mathematics does prove it, BTW.
They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
obama just willingly let 5 criminals go free of charge so....
That's really only true in the United States and somewhat less so in Europe. In most of the rest of the world they don't really give a damn about copyright, at least in practice. Oh sure, foreign governments will sign the copyright conventions or promise to enforce local laws, but in practice they turn a blind eye.
First, film and music piracy is largely considered to be an American problem and it's hard to get people to care much about rich foreigners being less rich (and all Americans are rich by their standards). Second, in Mexico, Brazil and other South or Latin American countries, media piracy is looked upon with about the same seriousness as jaywalking if it's looked upon as a crime at all, which it's often not. The police down there largely couldn't care less and they look the other way in return for modest bribes. Third, in societies such as Mexico and Brazil, which are very unequal in terms of wealth and income, pirated or knock off goods are the only way that most people have any access to consumer items. Without pirated media and knock off goods, they largely wouldn't be able to afford any foreign things like DVDs, name brand fashions, music, video games and the like.
Lastly, the copyright business in Mexico especially is frequently under the control of the cartels (the drug cartels not the American media cartels). The two biggest are Los Zetas (who based their logo on the title card of The Godfather) and La Familia Michoacana. The pirated DVD business doesn't bring in as much scratch as drugs, but it does provide walking around money to pay cartel foot soldiers and helps the cartels maintain presence and better control territories in Mexico. Of course, it goes without saying that they're not very concerned about copyright laws being that they torture and kill as a matter of doing business. The Mexican government itself already doesn't have a large enough budget for their own internal needs, never mind enforcing foreign copyrights. So you see, copyright is essentially de-facto meaningless outside the United States and Europe.
Why do you have to pick one or the other?
He's guilty, everyone knows it...
This type of mentality needs to stop.
Actually, for most rapes, there are no consequences - the rates of reporting of rape are very low, and the rate of conviction on reported rapes is extremely low. And as a consequence, rape is extremely common. About 30% are raped at least once during their lives, and in anonymous surveys of men asking what sexual activities they've done (some of which are rape), about 10% of young men confess to having raped at least once and about 3% confess to serial rape.
Very well; let this abomination unto the Lord begin!
So it's okay to carjack a car as long as you return it the same condition it was taken, and fill gas to the level it was before the carjacking?
Is it also okay to watch a movie in the theater without paying for tickets, because according to you, nothing was lost by the theater when you watched their movie for free?
All these people complaiing about how "horribly corrupt" the US government are are just playing a huge round of "First World Problems". The US is #19 on the Transparency International list. That's not superb, but it's out of 177 countries... I mean, for crying out loud, Yanukovych in Ukraine had a personal zoo at his house - tens of billions of dolllars stolen from a country whose per-capita income is less than that of Mongolia's. And that sort of stuff is hardly unusual in the world. Have any of you complaining about evil "US corruption" ever lived in a country with *real* corruption, at all levels?
#FirstWorldProblems
Very well; let this abomination unto the Lord begin!
What does it mean for a thing to be yours?
If you can make an exact duplicate of my car and drive it away, leaving my car behind, the only thing I'm going to ask is that you burn your duplicate copy of the registration and insurance info, and get your own plates, at your earliest convenience. Why should I care that you have an exact copy of my car? Your analogy, the carjacking, is nothing like copying. First of all, there's the threat of violence. Then there's the time between when you take it and when you return it that I don't have it.
So if you want to fallaciously argue by analogy, at least use a better analogy.
Oh, and please don't copy the car while I'm in it. That could get confusing, and my duplicate self will probably be just as attached to the duplicate car as I am to the original.
It's amazing how corrupt Hollywood is, they went back to 1787 to bribe the founding fathers to include copyright in the constitution.
It's not just that Kim Dotcom pirated materials, it's that he knowingly did it and took huge sacks of cash in advertising revenue from the worst scumbags in online advertising.
It's not just piracy, piracy is a major issue, but the even bigger issue is the racketeering(Hint: Doing something illegal and making a LOT of money off of it is REALLY illegal). Megaupload wasn't just serving up files, it was implicitly advertising itself as a piracy haven.
Kim Dotcom can kiss my ass.
"Your honor, we find the defendant INCREDIBLY guilty."
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
For anyone who doesn't know... Kim Dotcom [is a massive asshat]
Sure, he is. What's truly incredible is that a piece of lowlife scum such as that can come out looking like the good guy. He's small-time scum, but he's being pursued heavily buy much worse, scummier big-time scum.
He might be bad, but the people pursuing him are much worse. The fact that they're doing it using your taxes and claims of legality makes it vastly worse still.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Internet mega-entrepreneur, uber-gamer and now NZ political corruption-buster Kim DotCom
Which PR agency do you work for that Kimble has contracted to polish up his image?
When will the /. crowd understand that the guy is mostly a career criminal and he's the exact kind of person who will feed you to the sharks if he's your boss? His goal in life is winning and living large, and he doesn't give a fuck about politics, inventions, freedom, Internet or any of the other tools he uses to accomplish his goals.
Suckers, all of you.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Someone being raped is a consequence. It doesn't necessarily have a large consequence for the rapist, but there are consequences.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
No, because the owner was denied use of the car while it was gone. That's the thing I don't get about some copyright freaks: they don't even understand what stealing is, and why it's undesirable. How anyone could ever be able to trust you people, is downright weird.
Yes, it could be. A very realistic analogy is that you go to the box office, and say "I'd like to buy at ticket," and the person there throws a temper tamtrum. "FUCK YOU!! HOW ARE YOU OFFER ME MONEY!!?!?!" In shock, you mutter, "What's the problem?" and he explains, "You're one of those people who wears red shirts!!"
As it happens, you are wearing a red shirt. But it's a total non-sequitur. "Why do you care about my shirt?"
"EVERYONE KNOWS THAT RED-SHIRT WEARERS ARE FUCKING THIEVES! GET THE FUCK OUT OF HERE!!"
"No, I'm not a thief, I want to pay you money."
"FUCK YOU!!! WE ARE CLOSING!!"
And the box office person lowers the window blind, and turns on a closed sign. Then in the distance, you hear the gunfire, as the box office person has walked into the theater with their AK-47 and shot everyone in there, and then shot themselves.
You shrug and walk into the theater, sit down next to a bloody corpse, and watch the movie.
While it can be argued that maybe you might not really want to be present in such a theater, and maybe you should have called the cops when you heard the gunfire (i.e. you should have written your congresscritter to repeal DMCA), I don't really see any problem with people watching the movie without paying, in those circumstances. That's especially true after the tenth time it has happened, when this is a recurring thing that happens at every single theater and the populace has started to accept all the "fuck you"s and gunfire as totally normal and routine. Every single time you offer to buy a ticket, the answer is some form of "no, we're not open for business."
If it's not yours, don't take it without permission.
Are you seriously arguing that ideas can be owned to the exclusion of others?
> It's amazing how corrupt Hollywood is, they went back to 1787 to bribe the founding fathers to include copyright in the constitution [...]
How long was copyright protection then? How long is it today? Was infringement a criminal offence then? Today?
Ah, and BTW: it is actually amazing how much corruption Hollywood can get away with. And deepressing.
If I had to choose between a sleazy fraudster going to jail, and the uncovering (and correction) of government corruption, I'd choose the latter. Government corruption, at least in this particular case, is far scarier to me.
And this is how sleazy fraudsters survive. It's called misdirection. They're exploiting the weak minds of good people who don't realize that the other thing he's pointing at is simply the same thing in a different place. Politicians and sleazy fraudsters are of the same kind. By constantly pointing at each other, they prevent us from taking them down, because we can never decide which one to get rid of, focus and finally do it.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Nobody has a fully-resolved cause-and-effect engine in his head.
This is true to and extent. We do know that our actions have consequences, even if unknown and rippling consequences that extend far beyond our intended realm. The fact that we have dozens of movies(Groundhog Day) and TV shows (Voyager - "Year from Hell") dealing with the unintended consequences of actions proves we understand that while we don't fully know the consequences, we do understand that there are consequences.
Most Religions deal with this by having the Deity know all the consequences of our actions, and explaining morality in this context. My question is, if you know all the consequences for every single one of your actions, even the ones you thought didn't hurt anyone except yourself, would you change any of them? Most people would not, and that is why we suffer more than we ought to.
THIS is why we should always strive to be the best we can, all the time. Our actions have longer lasting consequences than we can even imagine.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
I think you misunderstand. Rape, murder, and theft all cause a harm which can be clearly defined. Causing harm is a consequence of an action. I'm saying that they inherently have consequences to society, unlike copyright infringement, which doesn't cause harm in the traditional sense, since there's no rival good involved (one's body would be a rival good in this context).
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Fine, the thief can take it when you're sleeping and return it before you wake up. Your car is now a public taxi when you're not using it. Is that fair, and are you okay with that?
The point being, there are many intangible products and services (like movies, trains, restaurants and copyrighted products) you pay for where you don't get a physical product for your money. The service provider is completely within his rights to charge you for benefiting from his intangible service.
The only difference is you can't copy those intangible products/services for free, therefore you don't steal/copy them. But once you figure out how to copy those products/services, piracy begins, and a small segment of the population will start using that service for free.
What does copyright infringement have to do with the color of shirts?
OF all the countries in the world, the US should be #1, because of things like the DoI, and Constitution. Our history and the stories we tell, are all about "Give me Liberty or Give Me Death" type liberty, and yet, here we are talking about how corrupt our government is and how it acts illegally, from Snowden to Dotcom..
The problem is that we have too much power accumulated in too few hands, because we don't like the decentralized form of government because it doesn't offer the support for Government Criminality that we desire.
Remember, we keep voting for the same set of people expecting different results. IF you vote (D) or (R), you ARE the problem you hate.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Actually he went back to 1703 to bribe the House of Lords to force the new copyright law to be limited to 14+14 years and then have everything go into the public domain "for the advancement of learning" as even then the elected representatives were corrupt and were going to follow the publishers advice and make copyright forever "for the authours" who would get a one time small payment from the publishers.
The "for the starving artists" argument goes back a ways.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Yeah, I'm aware of most of that. Still, I'm not sure how relevant some of that is?
Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak used to defraud telephone companies with custom made electronic boxes that let people cheat the established system, making long distance calls for free. That was before their careers took off, building and selling computers. Please elaborate on how that activity done as teenagers for kicks invalidates Apple as a legitimate business today?
Woosh. It was actually a joke.
No one seemed to get that he was referencing his parent that took the grandparent without quotes.
Kim Dotcom [is a massive asshat]
What a misleading edit.
He's a career criminal, fraudster and basically the exact same of professional fraud as the corrupt politicians he's now trying to "expose". If you think his motivations are anything but 100% selfish, I have a few bridges at really good prices.
He's small-time scum, but he's being pursued heavily buy much worse, scummier big-time scum.
In this class of sleazebags, there is no small and big or better and worse. They are all the same type of scum, and making us believe we should go after one but not the other is exactly how they thrive - because the good people are easily distracted. Scum A wants you to hate scum B. If you think scum B cares, you're stupid, because scum B is already preparing his own distracting making you hate scum C, who will distract you with scum D...
It's all a big game to make sure we never focus long enough on any of the scumbags to finally get rid of them for good.
The fact that they're doing it using your taxes
Because scum Kimble isn't using your money, yes? He grew it himself in his backyard, yes? OMG, wake up, fool. They are all using our money, because not one of these scumbags has had one honest job in their lives. The only difference is what label the money has attached, but in the end, it is all money that honest people worked honest hours for and that scumbags swindled them out of, one way or the other.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
This is just want prisoners are asking for....more assholes behind bars.
My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
pump-and-dump'd Letsbuyit.com
That's comedy gold right there.
Yeah, I'm aware of most of that. Still, I'm not sure how relevant some of that is?
Because it's not once. Your counterexample doesn't apply.
Kimble is a career criminal. He's shown again and again and again that he doesn't like honest work and prefers to trick people out of their money instead. He's shown that he changes his methods, but not his ways. He's shown it so often that only a complete moron would believe a single word out of his mouth.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
You apparently have never watched a movie on DVD or BluRay or tried to use a proprietary streaming service. Are you sure you're not the one from last century? From what I remember, we didn't really start having all these problems, until around 1996 (or 1999 for me; that's when I bought my first DVD). Until around then, things mostly Just Worked, so most of us didn't really have any reasons to pirate anything, therefore we didn't.
The right analogy is that your boss paid you big bucks to write TPS reports, and you did it, but you were angry at your boss so you passive-aggressively wrote all the TPS reports in Swahili, and your boss doesn't know Swahili. The boss somehow got an unpaid volunteer with a weird sexual fetish to translate the reports into English. (Somehow, this person gets off by translating Swahili to English, and is quite happy to do it for pleasure or glory or whatever the hell is going on there. People are weird!)
On the surface, the process appears to work so perfectly (the boss is actually very happy with his unobfuscated TPS reports) that he fires you, because he forgot that the new guy was really just repairing the deliberately-sabotaged TPS reports, not actually providing the reports' content. All because you insisted on being a total dick, and also all because there are some really weird people out there who are happy to clean up after you.
Long-term this looks like a bad situation. OTOH, it seems that eventually someone else comes along and writes more TPS reports (but in enciphered Swahili) for a single pay period. Then they get fired too. So you report-writers are making money, but a lot less than if you could just stop being a dick and hold a steady job. And the bosses are sort of happy because they're getting their reports, but they can't help but think that if they could find employees worth keeping who weren't dicks, the company would be more productive. Everyone is losing (except the fetishists), and things aren't working well, but somehow we're all getting by.
(Further complication and analogy-repair: There are really two bosses, in different departments, and there's a broken accounting system. Only one of the bosses' budgets are actually having to pay the paychecks for the high-turnover dick TPS report-writers, but the other boss whose budget never gets hit, also gets to read the repaired TPS reports from the volunteers. So we're not all paying evenly for this broken system. The "pirate boss" get a free ride and the "chump boss" who keep hiring dicks, is getting visciously shafted. Some people think the pirate boss or the volunteer translators are the problem here, but I think the dick report-writer is the problem, and yet, solving the problem requires that we all start talking to the chump bosses, explaining "Stop being a chump, and stop paying those dicks. Let's just put 'reports must be in English' into the hiring contract, and so the dicks don't get even a single paycheck." If we can all agree to stop being chump bosses, the dicks will get selected out of the job market and either starve to death or change their behavior, and we can start hiring employees who write unobfuscated TPS reports. That seems to be the everyone-wins scenario, though I'm not sure how the fetishist translators will occupy their time, after that.)
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
This is bullshit fear mongering.
Statistics about rape vary widely, mostly because "rape" is not clearly defined. People with an agenda to push use "rape" as a term because our mental image is that of someone brutally abusing his (generally) victim, forcing sexual intercourse against physical resistance, with screams and blood and violence.
But to arrive at that 30% number, you need to include every outlandish definition of "rape", which includes statutory rape (boyfriend who is age-of-consent +1 day having consensual sex with his girlfriend who is age-of-consent -1 day), date-rape (aka you were drunk and regretted your decision when you sobered up) and various other kinds of so-called "rape" that include all the shades of grey you can imagine.
The whole topic is so emotionally charged and confusiong that it has its own Wikipedia article, and if you follow that, you get some enlightenment:
Junk statistics from advocacy groups are slung around and become common knowledge, such as the incredible factoid that one in four university students has been raped. (The claim was based on a commodious definition of rape that the alleged victims themselves never accepted; it included, for example, any incident in which a woman consented to sex after having had too much to drink and regretted it afterward.)
The National Crime Victimization Survey, which uses a narrower definitions, found that only 0.5% of women and 0.06% of men, age 12 or older, were victims of rape or sexual assault in 1995. (The NCVS groups together rape and sexual assault.) By 2010, these numbers had decreased to 0.2% of women and 0.01% of men.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Kim Dotcom steals from the rich? Kim Dotcom facilitates acquisition of 'protected' material to the poor? Sounds like my kind of scum.
The fact that he's taking on government corruption is a nice bonus.
It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
if he can return the car in the same condition (no wear on the components or engine, no mileage change) then i would have no issue with the car going for a joyride at night when i am asleep.
any other frivolous arguments you want to come up with ?
Changing some of your actions to reduce suffering of others is often also sub-optimal. We could solve a lot of crime with telescreens, party propaganda, and laws against thought crime.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
You have fallen for the ruse that the US Constitution is the supremely best legal foundation a nation can have. Do you have any knowledge of what other countries have in place to protect the rights of their citizens, or do you just accept the claims that the US framework of freedom and democracy is superior as fact?
Highly doubt that. Maybe thousands...but there is no significant portion of the population that naturally wants to engage in this behavior. People just want to be left alone. Even if there were no justice system to regulate such behavior there is still many deterrents. The first one beingthat most people just want to be left alone.
I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
Irrelevant. His rights are immutable.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Fine, the thief can take it when you're sleeping and return it before you wake up. Your car is now a public taxi when you're not using it. Is that fair, and are you okay with that?
The point being, there are many intangible products and services (like movies, trains, restaurants and copyrighted products) you pay for where you don't get a physical product for your money. The service provider is completely within his rights to charge you for benefiting from his intangible service.
The only difference is you can't copy those intangible products/services for free, therefore you don't steal/copy them. But once you figure out how to copy those products/services, piracy begins, and a small segment of the population will start using that service for free.
funny if he did not want people to watch it, he should not have created it? ... they should have license for any and all words used, and colours and soundwaves ...
the service provider is using tools created by others for free, right? like words, ideas
What does copyright infringement have to do with the color of shirts?
the same thing theft has to do with copyrigth infringement
If there were really no consequences, we would be ok with people committing murder, rape and theft! Welcome to Valhalla, where we hack each other to death with axes and then wake up the next morning and happily feast together.
The reason that murder, rape and theft are crimes, is that there are consequences. If you could address them (though you can't), then you would have eliminated some crimes.
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
Uh, if X is 1 in your little equation, it's not true.
Well, slashdot removed the greater than or less than signs from my comment.. So my comment is, If X is less than or greater than 1 in your little equation, it's not true.
Thousands? There are tens of thousands of burglars in my city, and more than one murder per day. More than 10% of the general population here has committed minor aggravated assault.
Kryptonite Inc. will pay for your bicycle, up to $5000, if it's stolen when properly locked with one of their locks. Except in New York City, because there are projected to be over a hundred thousand bike thieves there (New York's population is about 15 times the population of my city) and bikes theft is hardcore.
With millions of people already committing these crimes, how do you think only thousands are actually willing to engage in this behavior? A study of 5000 college students (half men, half women) claimed 8% of men reported behaviors that are legally rape, but 85% of that 8% didn't consider it rape; 35% of the whole of men surveyed claimed they would consider committing rape if they were 100% certain of no consequences (i.e. only 65% said they absolutely would not commit an act of rape, even if they would get away with it).
Face it: the number is more like hundreds of millions than tens of millions. Roll together rape, murder, assault, theft.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Where are you people coming from? "Oh, if I get rich, but the other guy starves in the street, his suffering is a consequence.." No, his suffering is something you don't necessarily care about. It's only consequential if you care about it. I make more than the average ($55,000 is the mean income of Americans), and that means that someone, somewhere, is experiencing poverty because I'm not. That's inconsequential: I'm definitely getting a raise or a higher paying salary when I see the opportunity.
If you could murder someone you didn't like, and nobody you cared about or relied on cared, and you felt no remorse, then there would be no consequences.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
But Little Cat Z will clean it all right up!
#FirstWorldProblems
Which IRC network are you on?
Go learn some fucking Algebra and when you finally can solve for X in an equation as simple as 1 + X = 2, you'll find out that the only X value that is possible is 1.
If the car exists in some sort of groundhog day-esque universe where in the morning, every atom of the car is in the place it was originally, then I wouldn't really give a shit. In fact that would be pretty sweet, because then I could clone other people's vehicles too.
Copyright infringement is not stealing. Don't try to argue like it is.
Are you seriously arguing that the latest copy of "The Lego Movie" or "Non-Stop" are ideas?
So, your city is 1/15 the size of New York City, but there is more than one murder a day and tens of thousands of burglars? Can you tell us what this shit hole city is?
Where are you people coming from? "Oh, if I get rich, but the other guy starves in the street, his suffering is a consequence.." No, his suffering is something you don't necessarily care about. It's only consequential if you care about it. I make more than the average ($55,000 is the mean income of Americans), and that means that someone, somewhere, is experiencing poverty because I'm not. That's inconsequential: I'm definitely getting a raise or a higher paying salary when I see the opportunity.
If you could murder someone you didn't like, and nobody you cared about or relied on cared, and you felt no remorse, then there would be no consequences.
They're looking at things as a whole system not just from your selfish point of view. If you murder someone that nobody cared about or relied on, there are still consequences to the dead guy. That's the thought experiment they are discussing. If you can't follow it, don't chime in.
No, I'm making no such assumption about the "Ruse" about anything. The ruse I'm falling for, is liberty, defined in such a way that it values INDIVIDUAL rights above that of the group. The moment the group has more and better protected "rights" than an individual is the point where we can start locking up or killing people because they are an inconvenience or worse, a scapegoat. The DoI and the Constitution are outlines for this line of thinking, and the goal of both (D) and (R) parties ever since was to limit the liberties of the people.
Race, Ethnicity, Sexual Orientation, Religion or any other "classification" is, by definition, the attempt to create groups (artificial) that divide people and start creating preferences of groups over the individual. We call these groups "Minority", "disadvantaged", and "protected", and that is the moment it fucks with Liberty. Guess what, I am a member of a disadvantaged group of one, ME. The smallest group is that of one.
As for the DoI and Constitution, they are the best we have. That is my opinion. However, if you have a better set of documents defining what is Liberty, by all means break it out. Until then simply saying we can do better, or there are better is not good enough. Trying to fix these documents is impossible, for we have failed to live up to even THESE ideals. What makes anyone, especially you, think we can do better? THAT is the Ruse of the tyrants, that create laws under the guise of "do it for the children" and "people will starve", and "pushing grandma over the cliff" that sell out liberty for security.
To the point we now have neither.
Have a great day!
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Just to play devil's advocate, was any evidence presented against those 5 men? Did they have any sort of trial, or were they even formally charged with any crimes?
As far as I can tell, they were POWs. We did a POW exchange. That's been an accepted practice for a very long time now.
"NZ political corruption-buster" .. as the Aussie's say, "you must be dreamin...".
.
???
"sub-optimal" is subjective. Care to try again?
Simplified Version: Not having Gay Sex during the height of the AIDS spread pandemic, would have reduced the amount of AIDS spreading, but that is "suboptimal" for promiscuous gay men. But how many of them would have given up gay sex if it afforded them to live a long and prosperous life knowing the results of their action would keep themselves from getting AIDS and keep it from spreading after they did get it?
Then you realize that in certain circles of gay men, they would tempt fate by having unprotected sex with infected people, on purpose (sought out). I would consider that "non-optimal" but what do I know about being gay?
All of that being said, what is "optimal" and "sub-optimal" are completely subjective.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
FOAD, HAND
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
It bears thinking about, that a conspiracy might well exist between Kim Dotcom and Hollywood in order to frighten the plebs into paying tribute to their one god of money. This is not the first time in NZ that similar tribal comers have been Vector'd into the public arena. All the while, the erstwhile sore loser gets his comeback in a role that flushes out even more whistleblowers. Dotcom, like the aforementioned power player don't even have to initially be party to such an algorithmic conspiracy, as it's in their blood to buckle under until the inevitable shekel is recompensed.
He also ratted out the users of his BBS "House of Coolness" to an intellectual property lawyer. If that's your kind of scum, perhaps you're an asshole too?
Oh, please, cut it with the rape-apologism BS. "Rape is not clearly defined?" If you don't get an affirmative, withdrawable yes from someone who can legally consent, it's rape. What is so damned hard about that?
The only reason there's wikipedia fights is that all of the MRAs like you who want to be able to F*** girls so drunk they can't even walk or say it's not rape because "she didn't physically fight me", or "She came into my apartment, that's consent and she can't change her mind" want to try to dilute the very simple definition of rape. And FYI, using your own perferred source of statistics: 0,5% of women per year, average lifespan of 81 years, that's 1-(0.995^81) = 33% of women, using your "narrower definitions" survey. So here's a tip: the next time you want to cite statistics to support your MRA BS, try to find ones that don't argue precisely for the opposite of what you're trying to claim. And even that supposedly less "0,2%"? I'm sitting here looking at the 2010 National Crime Victimization Survey right here, and it says, "One percent, or approximately 1.3 million women, reported being raped by any perpetrator in the 12 months prior to taking the survey". The number "0.2%" does not exist in the document. And that 1% is only for rape - the number for "sexual violence victimization other than rape" is 5.6% of women in a 12 month period. And oh hey, you know your "statutory" excuse? "Complete interviews were obtained from 16,507 adults"
I'm sorry, go back to spewing your MRA rape-apologism BS, because god knows, the world needs more of THAT. Clearly you're the victim here - poor you having to listen to all those damned lying women saying they were raped, when you know so much better than them.
Very well; let this abomination unto the Lord begin!
And to head it off... no, consent does not have to be some sort of written contracts like MRAs try to play it out to be. It doesn't even have to be spoken. If she smiles, kisses you back, pulls you closer, etc, that's consent. But you CANNOT take silence as consent, you CANNOT take a previous yes as consent to a different event, you CANNOT take incapacitation as consent, and you CANNOT make consent irrevocable. You have to get affirmative, withdrawable consent, from someone who can legally consent, every time. I don't know why this is so hard for so many people.
Very well; let this abomination unto the Lord begin!
I don't know. I'm kinda of the thought that we're all selfish assholes. The only difference is between those who realize it and those who don't. Your a selfish asshole because you think your kids deserve my money to school them. You don't feel at all responsible for paying for that education, yet you brought them into this world.
Yea- I'd agree that kids should have a right to an education and I'm not against everybody paying toward it (regardless of the number of kids anybody has or doesn't have).
However that said I think the above makes a point about the fact we're all selfish assholes at the end of the day. I use to do some pretty criminal-minded stuff as a youngster out of self-interest, but that doesn't mean my actions today are totally selfish. Whereas I wasn't content with what I had back then I am content today. I have no problem donating substantial sums of money to good causes I believe in. However it all goes back to that selfish thing. I donate to causes that I feel could in some way potentially benefit me or a person like me in the future. Even my altruistic deeds are selfish.
Oh, please, cut it with the rape-apologism BS. "Rape is not clearly defined?" If you don't get an affirmative, withdrawable yes from someone who can legally consent, it's rape. What is so damned hard about that?
I'm sorry if you can't handle the truth, but that's not my problem.
The hard part (no pun intended) is that very few human beings begin a sexual activity by signing a clearly spelled-out contract. As such, we often end up with different interpretations after the fact. In addition, in some jurisdictions it is legally rape even if the women explicitly consented to sex and then changed her mind during or even after intercourse.
Your primitive try at statistics is laughable, please try again, or simply read some statistics that have already done the math for you.
When you go into the studies instead of just reading the boilerplate, you find gems like some studies classifying things as rape that even the women interviewed did not consider such. You find that when drinking is involved, the vast majority of cases (one report says 83%) are not cases of the alleged perpetrator getting his victim drunk, but of social drinking and morning-after-regrets. Frankly speaking: If you consider this rape, then you have a curious case of a crime where both parties are equally victim and perpetrator, because by the same definition, the man was just as much raped as the woman.
Here's what gets me angry: That there are real women out there experiencing real rape. Not the kind where you wake up and look to your right and think "what the fuck have I done?", but the kind where you need therapy afterwards, because it's not a joke.
And these women are done a massive disservice by self-interested lobby groups classifying every unpleasant sexual encounter as "rape".
And if you really think that being physically attacked and penetrated against your will falls even into the same category of things as having a beer too many and regretting going home with that guy the next day, then you need to have your head examined.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
You have to get affirmative, withdrawable consent, from someone who can legally consent, every time. I don't know why this is so hard for so many people.
Because you try to put hard definitions on soft interactions.
By your definition, I am a serial rapist, because I have had a few girlfriends who enjoyed being woken up with sex, and had explicitly asked me to do so. In my book, that is consent, and in a loving relationship it's easy to check if her body responds to your touch or not. But by your definition, that is rape because she was asleep and did not consent to that specific event.
And that's what I dislike. This zero-tolerance motivated ultra-extremist definitions. Thanks to feminist lobbying gone wild, we now have some jurisdictions where she can consent 100% to sex, and as soon as she says "no" during intercourse, the whole thing is rape, even if you stop immediately. Or where she can change her mind the next day and turn a fully consentual sex act into rape, even if before and at and even after the event itself absolutely nothing she said or did indicated non-consent.
I'm strongly opposed to these extremist definitions that muddy the water, because they make it harder to fight the real problem.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Off topic. Your post is irrelevant. The topic at hand has nothing to do with Dotcom's character or lack thereof.
I don't know. I'm kinda of the thought that we're all selfish assholes.
To some degree.
There's still a difference between being a human being and being a scumbag who'd sell his grandma and thinks nothing about ruining others for his personal gain.
Some of us have ethics and a feeling of belonging to the society we are a part of, and then there are some people who have only themselves and a strong feeling that society exists to be exploited.
It's a matter of degrees, but it's usually fairly easy to spot those who've passed a certain threshold. We call them psychopaths, btw. and many top-level business people show characteristics of it.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
There is not even need for a conspiracy.
We foolishly assume that the government and media cartels dislike what he's doing, but they may just as well consider him a useful pawn and play him. The same way we think casinos don't like it when someone actually wins the jackpot, while the opposite is true.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
The poor kiwis don't have any courts of their own?
The courts of us "poor kiwis" have already hosted a number of cases regarding Mr Dotcom, however that is not where the alleged racketeering and copyright infringement charges were filed - they were filed in Virginia.
But unless New Zealand has no notion of copyright, why not file a copyright infringement lawsuit in New Zealand?
Ezekiel 23:20
Seriously, if he was breaking US law in the US and then fled, sure, go ahead and extradite. Anything else is completely fucked up and probably should be illegal. Does anyone with a brain realize that this would completely justify the obverse?
...
Changing the topic slightly...
Kim Dotcom's extradition hearings are being held in a country that's first equal on that list. And whose courts are not automatically bending over to take the various government agencies purely on their word. He's getting plenty of opportunity to defend himself.
If he does still get extradited, he's going to have a hard time claiming it was due to corruption. No doubt he will try though.
...that our federosaurus is going to seize the money as soon as it actually gets transferred to some winner. But if the incriminating information can be gotten out to the Internet, Dotcom's point will still have been proven.
If you sneak into a movie without paying, are you under any sort of impression that you've done nothing wrong?
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
In general, having sex with a sleeping person is illegal**, almost everywhere in the world. The fact that you weren't charged because she happened to be into it doesn't make it not rape, any more than it wouldn't be rape if you happened to jump out of the bushes with a knife and rape a girl who happened to have a rape fantasy. If one night your girlfriend had gone to bed angry with you and woken up to you F*ing her without her consent, she would have had, and should have, every damned right in the world to charge you for it. You can never assume an unending right to F*** someone, even your girlfriend or spouse, and that's a damned good thing.
** In some jurisdictions, there are exceptions made for if consent was given shortly before the person went to sleep (considering that to be consent immediately before the sexual activity), while in others, there's a flat ban. In one noteworthy case in Canada for the extreme end of the spectrum, in R. v. J.A., the Canadian Supreme Court took on a case where a woman consented to be strangled during sex, she passed out, and while she was out her partier tied her up and shoved a dildo up her anus, she came to, he stopped, she recovered, and then they did other consensual sexual activities. The Supreme Court ruled that the activities that occurred during the three minutes that she was unconscious were rape. It doesn't matter that she was consenting to sexual activities before and after - you cannot assume consent from an unconscious person.
You claim there's blurry lines. There are no blurry lines. You want there to be blurry lines, holes carved out in the definition of rape so that you have the right to f*** girls without having to get their permission. It's a damned good reason that they're not. Because rape is enough of a problem as it is with people like you who think you have a right to F*** girls without getting their consent.
[[Citation needed]]. Point me to a single jurisdiction where it's considered rape if you stop immediately. However, if you don't stop immediately, YES, it's rape, and you better damned well believe it's rape..
If consent was given, it's not rape. If consent was not given, it's rape. If you're having a problem with women accusing you of rape, stop F*ing them without their consent.
And oh, that evil feminist lobby, wanting women to have a right to say no before sex - clearly they're just a bunch of Nazis!
they make it harder to fight the real problem.
You don't get it, do you? The real problem is you, and everyone like you who thinks they have a right to F* girls without getting their consent. That's RAPE.
Very well; let this abomination unto the Lord begin!
What I'm saying is backed up by the law. What you're saying is backed up by "I want to fuck sleeping and drunk girls without their permission, and anyone who says that's wrong is a feminazi".
As I just headed you off, no court in the world asks for a written contract. They simply look for anything that a reasonable person would consider explicit, affirmative consent before the activity by a party legally capable of consenting. It doesn't even have to be spoken. But you don't even want to have to get a damned smile from your "partner" before sticking it in.
Once again, [[Citation needed]]. There is no such jurisdiction on Earth.
That's how one compounds an annualized probability over a number of years, it's a very simple formula. And there are tons and tons of studies out there which have total accumulated likelyhood of rape over a woman's lifetime (about 30%), but you just keep hand-waving them away.
The very study YOU cited, which I quoted, ASKED the subjects (men and women) whether they had been raped in the past year. Why are you complaining about me quoting YOUR preferred study?
Glad to know that you'd think you'd simply "made a mistake" if you got drunk (or worse, if someone had slipped something in your drink) and woke up to some guy f***ing you without your consent. Hey, where do you usually party and when, I'd like to send a few guys your way who would be very interested in your "if I'm drunk to the point of incoherence / unconsciousness, I'm fine with whatever sexual activity occurs, and if I regret it it's my fault" approach.
Hey, let's take it even further. I'm *thrilled* to know that if you get drunk to the point that you're incoherent or unconscious, then that counts as consent to take your wallet. And if you get drunk, I'm sure I'm going to love getting to take your car. And burn down your house. I appreciate the fact that to you, being incapacitated is consent to whatever the people around you want to do. This is going to be lots of fun!
Very well; let this abomination unto the Lord begin!
I love the description of "political corruption-buster". He testified that he had given money to an MP. It takes a very special pair of cojones to spin that as "busting corruption".
Kimble was a fraudulent investor in the past. What evidence is there to show that he has been fraudulent since he moved to New Zealand? Megaupload was a legitimate file trading website.
If you want the entertainment business to leave you alone just make sure you have enough evidence against enough of their people for doing the unlawful things that we all know that they do.
$5 million would purchase a lot of private investigation work, time to sink a few of their ships Kim?
We already are
"obama just willingly let 5 PEOPLE go free of charge so...."
FTFY
This "guilty till proven innocent" mentality HAS to stop!!
Remember kids: What's right isn't as important as what's profitable.
Just realized I missed a part:
What's "curious" about that? It's the exact same as with any other crime. If you attack an innocent person, you're charged with battery. If two people are fighting, however, and there's no "primary aggressor", you're "mutual combattants", and unless you're violating some other statute (for example, disorderly intoxication), the case is generally declared nolle prosequi.
Of course, your proposed scenario where two people are drunk to the point of unconsciousness is physically impossible, and if they're both drunk merely to the point of incoherence, you're going to have a lot of trouble having sex. As to what level of intoxication determines one's inability to grant legal consent (to sex, to signing a contract, to whatever) varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but let's not play dumb - if you see a person who's slurring their speech, can hardly stand up, and doesn't seem to understand where they are, don't act all dumb and say, "Oh, I thought she was perfectly cogent to make informed decisions!"
If you happen to find a jurisdiction where a 0,05 BAC is declared to be incapacitated, hey, you've got my support, that'd be an overly strict declaration. But that's not the general case, the case that all those evil Feminazis that you hate are complaining about.
Very well; let this abomination unto the Lord begin!
You should have a copy of your car that you use for driving, and a copy that you leave on your front lawn for other people to copy as you please. Really, lawn space these days isn't as restrictive as it once was.
Uh... yeah... right.
"fraudulent investor". Sure. That and a dozen other crimes, several narrow escapes from the law, and the list goes on.
"legitimate file trading"... err... suuuure. You've never read a thing about what police uncovered in internal communications, it seems.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
but let's not play dumb - if you see a person who's slurring their speech, can hardly stand up, and doesn't seem to understand where they are, don't act all dumb and say, "Oh, I thought she was perfectly cogent to make informed decisions!"
You missed the point. In most (83% in one report) cases, it is not the case of one person being sober and exploiting another, but both being drunk. Your case is the minority, and I completely agree on those cases.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
What you're saying is backed up by "I want to fuck sleeping and drunk girls without their permission, and anyone who says that's wrong is a feminazi".
Actually, let's get the personal attacks out of here. I apologize for mine. For the record: I hate drunk people, can't stand them. However, I have fucked sleeping girls - namely girlfriends who explicitly asked me to wake them with sex because they like it. Now you can call me a rapist, even if all parties actually involved would disagree strongly with you. So much for "backed up by the law".
But you don't even want to have to get a damned smile from your "partner" before sticking it in.
You're tied up in emotions. You don't know me and yet you think I'm pro-rape simply because I'm against unlimited expansion of the term. Let's be clear here: If someone were to rape my girlfriend, I wouldn't call the cops, I'd call some friends, get a gun, and shoot the bastard. But if female friends of mine tell me about how they drank a bit too much the other night and ended up in bed with this guy and the next morning they just wanted to get out of there as fast as possible and pray they didn't actually fuck but they're not sure, then my advise to them is not to call the cops, but to drink less.
Maybe I'm simple and stupid in that regard, because I don't drink at all and I don't understand why people get drunk, and I don't like them when they do, but if you incapacitate yourself, I have little sympathy for you. Now if someone puts a drug into your drink, that's a completely different territory.
Why are you complaining about me quoting YOUR preferred study?
You are hand-picking, one of the worst sins in statistics. I mentioned the variety of studies and methods and named one as an example, and now you're drawing all your arguments from that source. Honest arguments don't work like that.
Hey, let's take it even further. I'm *thrilled* to know that if you get drunk to the point that you're incoherent or unconscious, then that counts as consent to take your wallet. And if you get drunk, I'm sure I'm going to love getting to take your car. And burn down your house. I appreciate the fact that to you, being incapacitated is consent to whatever the people around you want to do. This is going to be lots of fun!
You're foaming at the mouth. You should stop doing that.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
The fact that you weren't charged because she happened to be into it doesn't make it not rape, any more than it wouldn't be rape if you happened to jump out of the bushes with a knife and rape a girl who happened to have a rape fantasy.
And that's why I argue against this stupidity, because you seriously think violently raping someone with a deadly weapon falls into the same category as consentual fun between adults that all parties involved enjoy, it just falls outside the too-narrow scope of the law.
If one night your girlfriend had gone to bed angry with you
Your mind is made up and you are emotional. It is your mindset that is totally fucked up. You really think that there's no interaction and empathy in a loving relationship and that men are robots that don't understand that what's totally fine in situation A is not so in situation B. I hope the medium of text is to blame and you don't really live and feel that way because I'd be sorry for you if you do.
You want there to be blurry lines, holes carved out in the definition of rape so that you have the right to f*** girls without having to get their permission.
I don't know and frankly I don't care where your anger comes from, but again your argument is personal, emotional and completely besides the point. The only thing I don't want is tons of things that are not rape be thrown in with it, because rape is too serious a crime to be muddied up like that.
The rest of your drivel I won't even comment on. You are foaming at the mouth, not having an argument. Apparently I triggered something in you and you can't stand the thought that real life is more complicated than the textbooks say, especially in situations that become he-said-she-said when they go to trial.
Being opposed to jailing innocent people is not the same as being pro-criminal. On the contrary, the justice system has a duty not only to convict the criminals, but also to acquit the innocent. In crimes against humanity, this is often forgotten when people ask for stricter sentencing, stronger punishments, etc.
But especially in rape, the situation is more complex than you like. For example, a nine-year study of a small metropolitan area in the Midwestern United States found that 41% of rape accusations were false. (Archives of Sexual Behavior 23 (1)). Another report found that DNA evidence excluded the primary suspect in 26% of rape cases (https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/dnaevid.pdf). Then you have the purely legal fictions. swedish law can be interpreted to make it a rape if a mans penis touches (without penetration) a womens vagina while both are sleeping - of course that never, ever, happens, right? Or it can be read as the act being rape if the women is physically restrained, even if she doesn't resist or object - which makes large sections of BDSM play legally rape.
Then on the other hand we still have laws that make forced sex not rape if you are married, or where consent can not be legally withdrawn after penetration has occurred, which are just as crazy. But of course, you will completely ignore this and continue accusing me of total nonsense, because for all I can tell, you don't want to have justice and fair laws, you want to shoot every accused rapist without trial, because the crime is so horrible it shouldn't need such things as balance and proof.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
As it happens, you are wearing a red shirt. But it's a total non-sequitur. "Why do you care about my shirt?"
What does copyright infringement have to do with the color of shirts?
I would like to watch Game of Thrones, here is a reasonable amount of money. To watch Game of Thrones you need an HBO subscription, go buy a HBO subscription. Ok that is a bit pricey, but fine, I would like a HBO subscription, I currently live in Germany. Sorry, you must live in the US to get an HBO subscription. Ok, is there a different way to watch Game of Thrones? You can buy the DVDs. OK do you have region 2 DVDs? No we only have region 1 DVDs. Ok so my options are paying you money and circumvent the region coding, aka "copy protection" and potentially get 3 years jail time and not paying you money and torrenting / downloading the movies and potentially get 3 years jail time. You know there are occasionally situations where people will outright refuse to sell you a legal copy.
Well Detroit, Baltimore, and Chicago all function about the same way, despite hosting the major auto manufacturing industry, an international trading port and the water supply for the entire state of Maryland, and the futures exchange for the entire United States.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Sub-optimal is not subjective. Using an excessive amount of salt in food is sub-optimal: more salt than is healthy may taste better (note: salt has no impact on health at intake levels between 1500mg and 6000mg), but an excessively high amount of salt tastes bad, can cause the skin inside the mouth to peel and bleed, and can induce vomiting.
The Child of Omelas represented a fully optimized state: one person experienced high suffering, but eliminating that suffering would destroy the lives of thousands each generation. In the hypothetical system, there was no way to decouple these things, and so we could show that taking any action to reduce the suffering of this person would bring about greater suffering to society.
In real life, the easiest example is healthcare. Full public healthcare is inherently broken: it's expensive, causing a high degree of economic damage. Stronger states like Norway and Germany have full public healthcare, Norway by extreme prosperity (fourth largest oil supplier in the world--incredible amount of wealth, modest taxes support the system) and Germany by taxes (above 50% for the middle class). Canada has a hybrid system in which any employed Canadian has employer-supplied private health insurance--73% of Canadians are using private insurance, easing the pressure off the public system. Poorer countries like the United States simply can't do it.
Even a poor nation with functional healthcare would benefit by supplying all clinical services (e.g. health checkups, immunizations, minor injury treatment, STD tests) by either public funds or regulation by which hospitals must supply clinical coverage at their own expense. While full public funding of cancer treatment and the like may bankrupt the country, supply of basic health needs reduces the burden of healthcare and strengthens the country's economy. As you extend this, the returns diminish: you gain $1000 for every $1 invested, the $100 per $1, then $10, then you hit $1 per $1. After that, the system costs more than it's worth.
That final point, where you neither gain nor lose for your additional investment, is the optimal point. The system is fully optimized when taken out to unity, as every dollar invested has provided a return. In the case of healthcare, this return stems from fitness of the labor force and reduction of healthcare costs by better general public health. After this point, investing additional money in other social welfare efforts improves the economy further, typically decreasing factors which lead to lower public health: investing money somewhere other than public health can actually improve public health.
That's what optimal means. It means you take action X because action X provides the best return overall. Action X may solve some other problem which you could address directly, but chose not to. For example: Police, prisons, and ubiquitous wiretapping would address crime; but so would better welfare and mental health services. An investment in welfare and mental health services strengthens the labor force, improving the economy; an investment in enforcement culls the labor force and costs money. Which is more optimal?
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Oh, no, you don't get off that easily. I'm not going to respond to any more of your post until you respond to my very simple scenario above:
What's your response? I'm not going to accept a dodge here. If you black out while partying and a group of guys have their way with you while you're incoherent or unconscious, you're just jim dandy with that situation, and that's your own fault? If you're incoherent or conconscious and I get you to give me your wallet, you're just fine with that? You're *really* fine with incoherence and unconsciousness being consent?
Again, I'm not just going to let you dodge this. Call me "foaming at the mouth" if you want, but answer the question.
Very well; let this abomination unto the Lord begin!
Very well; let this abomination unto the Lord begin!
You don't make any more sense than the ftfy guy did.
"[statement] in the same way that 1+X=2" hasn't quite the meaning of the original text. It's almost everywhere false (when 1+1=2 is always true), and your explanation relies on the implicit condition "when 1+X=2". This is so much bullshit I'd very much like to subscribe to your mailing list.
I thought I answered that question, and quite clearly.
If you're blind drunk and/or unconscious and someone takes advantage of your condition without explicit consent(*), that's rape.
But that is the minority of cases. One report says that in 83% of these so-called rape cases, both parties had been drinking. Another study concludes that about half of so-called "date rapes" are actually morning-after regrets, i.e. both people were drinking, enjoying the night, decided to go somewhere and have a fuck, and after sobering up the next morning one party changed their mind and said "shit, what have I done?".
At which point I would tell them to not drink if they can't handle it, or have a friend who stays sober and can bring them home and/or talk them out of stupid decisions.
I don't feel much pity for people who incapacitate themselves. I'm talking about normal drinking here, not about some scenario where someone got slipped a drug or whatever, just to make that clear.
But more importantly, I don't want to mix people whose perception of attractiveness got drowned in a bunch of drinks they voluntarily had with real victims who were brutally raped, often beaten and sometimes murdered. These two things are not in the same class. And as much as I don't feel pity for drunken girls going home with a guy they don't like anymore in the morning, my thoughts are very much with any victim of an actual rape, which I consider one of the most horrible crimes out there, on par with torture and mutilation. And that is exactly why I'm so opposed to mixing things into it that belong into different categories.
(*) by which I mean proper consent, given while the person was sober and conscious, something like "hey, if I get drunk later, fuck me properly, will you? I love it when you do that."
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
What a misleading edit.
How so? You restated it as:
He's a career criminal, fraudster and basically the exact same of professional fraud as the corrupt politicians he's now trying to "expose".
Which in my book makes him a massive asshat. But whatever.
In this class of sleazebags, there is no small and big or better and worse.
No, I disagree.
Once those asshats can operate under the colour of law there is no way of avoiding them. That makes them much, much worse.
The only difference is ...
I'd rather that there were a thousand Kim Dotcoms running around trying to scam the crap out of me than having a pair of corrupt governments ignoring their own laws and procedures in order to "get the ad guy", becuse the latter is a pit with no bottom.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Don't give me that BS, I've been raped; it doesn't matter how it happens, you've still been sexually violated against your will. Would you honestly use your line of argument for anything else? "Well, yeah, he burned down my home, but he was really polite and apologetic about it, so it's not REAL arson...."?
I'm not talking about someone being polite.
The arson metaphor doesn't really work here, but how about other things people do when they're drunk? Two persons are both heavily drunk, they're on a bridge, joking around, A teases B by taking away something and B tell A to throw it into the river, it'll be fun.
Next day, B says it was theft, because B was non compos mentis when B said it.
Maybe legally it was theft. I would still maintain that it's a different category of action as A robbing B at gunpoint, even though both acts resulted in B losing posession of the item.
You know what the worst part of it is, IMHO? How you can't talk about it afterwards. [...] because assholes like you would begin to question whether it was "real" rape or whether I brought it on myself by dressing too seductively or did enough to fight off the attacker.
You're emotional about a person you don't know. You assume that my behaviour in a theoretical argument on the Internet would be the same as when faced with an actual even in the real world. That's an insane assumption.
Given the fact that you're having a problem with people saying that you raped them (according to your first post), perhaps YOU'RE just thrilled with your behavior, but the women you're raping are not.
I don't know where you got that first part from, but I am quite certain about the second part. In fact, if this weren't an Internet argument, I could point you to the girls in question and tell you to ask them yourself.
I'd like to ask you to make fewer assumptions. You're now at the point where you make assumptions about the feelings of people you not only don't know, but of whose existence you've only just learnt from someone you don't know, on the Internet. That's at least 3 layers of indirection. Even under the best of assumptions, any guesses you make about persons you know so little about is guaranteed to be basically random.
Wait a minute, so you *are* getting some form of consent before the sexual activity, checking to see if she's into it? You're not just assuming unending consent, as you described previously?
No, you described "unending consent". I did not. Please do not turn assumptions you made around and claim they were words from my mouth.
There's a huge imbalance, all right, but it's towards people getting away with rape scott-free.
That is true.
It does not, however, justify incarcerating innocent people or expanding the legal definitions ad infinitum. It asks for better enforcement of the existing laws.
But of course you're not railing against them because you don't care about them, you just want to be able to F*** girls without their permission.
You keep repeating baseless accusations of a very personal nature. I don't think I want to continue an argument where the other part is basically screaming at me half the time. Seriously, if people treated you the same way, would you enjoy it?
If you want to accuse me of something that's a crime in my country, contact my local police: +49-40-4286-50.
If you think this rage is some kind of argument, and you only keep repeating it for dialectic reasons, then I don't think we have enough common ground to continue a discussion.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
If someone can drive by my car, do a scan of it that I don't even notice and doesn't affect me, then generate a perfect copy of it, minus the license plates and registration and also me and my passengers, then drive away in this duplicate of my car, why would I care?
Ah, so he's a Bill Gates.... gotcha.
I hope that any man who finds himself in the sad situation of risking having sex with you gets a chance to read your comments here today.
The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
As far as I can tell, they were POWs. We did a POW exchange. That's been an accepted practice for a very long time now.
To use that sort of twisted logic you just have to be a fscking Seppo(or fellow traveler).
The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
Good point. As soon as someone demonstrates a 3d xerox machine, I'll do that. Of course, you'd be better off copying something nicer...
You didn't answer the question.
I think you missed my point. Whether he's an asshole, or how big an asshole he is, or whatever, he still ought to get due process, just like any other asshole. The Keystone Kops bent over backwards to fuck this one up, as if rule of law were a nicety that only applies to people they don't want to prosecute (yet). This kind of behavior deserves only one reward: due process, the same thing Mr. Dotcom is entitled to.
Someone who buys the government and then uses the power they have bought to get the government to come down like a ton of bricks on whomever they designate is an entirely different class of sleazebag than someone who violates copyright, no matter how egregiously.
Rather than sharecropping a parcel of land for generations at the whim of a noble, my family is able to pour their hard work into the acquisition of land and a home, and the security those things provide. In exchange for the individual right to ownership, each person is obliged to respect the ownership rights of others.
I am aware the folks at the patent office appear to have warm crack pipes in their possession much of the time, of late. Ownership, the privilege, is exploited by the wealthiest within the system like virtually all freedoms are. The "mine and yours" statistical model is still eminently fair as long as the poorest maintain their right to inclusion within the system.
What does it mean to be "yours?" Why hell, that I can have something that is "mine".
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
Sounds pretty one-sided. So you want to have something that is "yours" that I can't have even though possession of it is non-rivalrous. What do I get in exchange for giving up the (implicit) right to have an instance of this thing?
Being as stupid as you are must be painful, surely? If not, it certainly should be.