Those are things we need to get government to do. Google cannot do them. It can howevee mitigate the harm by choosing not to market companies that makes things worse. I really do not want to live in a world where companies have more power than that.
Bankruptcy = having your assets siezed to settle as much debt as possible in return for not having to pay all of it. I.e losing everything you ever had. You demanded a citation then gave name of the process you wanted as a solution !
Bankruptcy is only an improvement over being jailed for debt. It is not a good thing.
You want viable solutionsq ? Welfare based emergency aid finance. Nonprofit interest free loan organisations. Universal basic income. There you go. Three possible viable solutions. Why would you keep defending something that makes the problem worse ? People need a way to avoid bankruptcy and you are pointing at something that accelerates it and calling that a solution.
Just to underscore how bad bankruptcy is: every job Ive had in ten years came with a mandatory credit check. I earn a high income now and own multiple investments. Had I gone bankrupt I would still be earning minimum wage because I wasnt that good with money at age 19... bankruptcy is often a permanent poverty trap.
Predators are not a solution. A solution by definition is NOT something that makes the original problem (lack of money in this case) worse. In my youth on a tiny starting salary I fell short of money once. I went to a payday loan company because I didnt know better. But because tge charges were so high I was even more short the next month... after six months I would actuallt need to borrow more than my salary to cover the shortfall...
I was trapped with zero way out. My problem was not solved - it was exacerbated. I was lucky. I could go hat in hand to my dad, admit I fucked up and asked for help. He paid off the loan. Gave me enough money to get to payday. Helped me work work out a budget I could survice on including a manageable repayment to him. I paid back every penny.
Most people they prey on do not have somebody else who can throw down a rope when they are finally dug in so deep they realize there is no way out. I got my ego bruised and learned some hard lessons. Most people lose everything they ever had. That is not a fucking solution. I had upper middle class parents. Most of their customers do not.
>Do you really want Google to censor legal ads that it feels are immoral or unethical? Yes. >If so then everyone should have the right to censor. Everyone already does - to exactly the same extent google does. Can I DEMAND that you keep hardcore German fetish porn mags on your coffee table ? Or is it your right to choose NOT to have it in your house if you don't want to ? For that matter can I FORCE you to keep a Bible in your house where it is prominently visible to all visitors ? No I can do none of that because you have the right to censor the media inside your own home. You have a right to choose what messages you want to convey to people on your property.
What you are effectively saying is that private companies and citizens should not be allowed to choose what messages they want to promote on their private property. If you seriously believe that then I expect a picture from you within 24 hours showing a massive sign encouraging everybody to join the church of scientology painted on all your outside walls. Not because I like the church of scientology but because I'm pretty sure you don't - and you should not be allowed to censor my sudden desire to promote them on your private property.
Yes, for example defrauding somebody by using a legal loophole or a badly written law to avoid being prosecuted for something that is clearly "gaining his money through deceptive practices".
>Do you want Google to censor ads based on ethics? Yes. > If so who's ethics. Their own. Because much as I despise their ethics on virtually every topic - it is the right of every free citizen to only allow, on their own property, behavior that accords with their own ethics and this is just about the only case where a corporation actually SHOULD have the same right as a citizen. It's google's ad network, and google's sites - and they have every right to decide what content they are willing to host on it. Contrary to that reason article, the end of sex-work ads on craigslist did not generally move sex-workers off the internet, it merely moved them to other publications. In a particularly funny version - when South African classified site "gumtree" banned sex-work ads, a site was formed within a week dedicated to sex-work classifieds... it was called (you can't make this shit up) cumtree.
Only if getting rid of the predators is all you do - sane people consider that step one.
First get rid of the predators, then establish something better in it's place.
Like say - a cooperative zero-interest bank that can give out emergency loans or a working social safety net that protects people from NEEDING payday loans to survive ?
EVERYTHING he has said IS racist. Your failure to recognize it as such means YOU are a racist as well. EVERY non racist can see that those are racist views !
Erm - judicial elections, where they exist, have been around for centuries. They aren't a new invention replacing more typical selection processes that were in place within our lifetime. The incumbent was either elected or appointed BY somebody elected. The length of the chain may vary but it does nothing about idiot likelihood, quite the opposite in fact. When a single judge chooses the next judge (as opposed to a council) he is incredibly likely to choose one that shares his personal idiocies.
>both people are guilty of rape True - but in that case it doesn't make much sense to prosecute either one and generally neither are.
>both my wife and I have raped each other by initiating sex without spoken consent. Nowhere did I say it has to be a VERBAL yes, though whenever you are with somebody you do not know very well you SHOULD insist on that. It's one thing to read non-verbal qeues from a spouse you know well - it's quite another with somebody else, and it's way to easy to claim you misinterpreted a "no" as a "yes" so we MUST side with the accuser in those cases. If you insist on a verbal "yes" with any hookups or casual sex you are entirely in the clear. Oh and that's a "yes" for every activity - not just a "yes" to sex. Just because a girl is happy to blow you doesn't mean she wants penetration - and assuming so is still rape. And it's not MY definition - it's the law, all over the free world and has been for decades. That you don't know this is exactly why we have a problem.
> While you recognize that men get raped, you refer only to men raping women. A matter of prioritization not diminishing anything. Men get raped far less often than women - so it's a far smaller problem and since resources are limited we need to focus them on the massive problem not the rare one. Especially since - most of what we can do to help with the massive problem will ALSO help with the rare one. I don't deny the severity of men being raped, or the problems associated with it - it's just that it is much rarer. Oh and 90% of the time men get raped - it is by other men, and the vast majority of those men identify as straight. I live in the rape capital of the world - in my entire life I've read of exactly ONE violent female on male rape (a gang-rape actually by several women). I read of women getting gangraped every WEEK.
>The biggest problem with rape and jurisprudence is that it's often very difficult to determine beyond a reasonable doubt whether there was consent or not This is true - but to pretend this harms men more than women is simply ignorant. By far the worst outcome of that is the many victims who have no chance of ever seeing justice.
>More than most such problems, rape has to be dealt with by influencing the culture, and that's starting way worse than you and I like. Finally you're saying something I entirely agree with.
Actually almost ALL of Europe does it (not as much the energy part but the other two sure).
In fact you are not doing the math right. You're looking at the expense but not counting savings. In both healthcare and education there is overwhelming empirical proof from more than 100 countries that the savings are bigger than the expense. In other words - neither will cost you anything and in fact will cost less. It costs society MORE to have people pay their own healthcare than to bulk-buy it together for everybody. People who don't go to college end up costing taxpayers far more over a lifetime than it would have cost to send them - and contributing little, if any, taxes themselves. It's much better for you to pay a bit now to send somebody to college - and have that person pay middle class taxes for life, than to refuse to and end up subsidizing them for life (and even if you got rid of all welfare they would STILL cost you money since most of them earn less than a taxable income but they all use public services like roads and trash collection which you ONLY pay for). Do the math, a person living 50 years past high school (the average in the USA) who doesn't earn a middle class income will, over that time, cost you more than ten times what it would have cost to send them to college, and that's without factoring in inflation -when you do it gets closer to 30 times the cost over the same period. It makes no sense not to get that saving from everybody with the talents to succeed at college.
> President Obama has personally said he does not favor bringing it back in play
Because he already had the republican congress actively stalling anything he suggested just because it was him suggesting it - even when he suggested something htey had championed for years they would turn their backs on it... he really didn't need ANOTHER fight with congress.
You think being afraid of a religion is NOT bigotry ? Do you also oppose us calling homophobes bigots ?
Bigot is not a synonymn for racist.
Even then he still IS a racist, the son of a racist (look it up - Fred Trump was probably the single most racist landlord in US history and a huge Hitler sympathizer) who definitely agrees with everything daddy said. You don't have to hate a particular race to be racist, you only have to think your own is better.
I've seen trumpeters claiming he isn't a racist because "Mexican is not a race" - but considering nearly all Mexicans are not white - that doesn't change it, it's definitely STILL Racism.
Cultural supremacism is also bigotry.
Oh and some things you should know: - Imigration rates with Mexico is negative and have been for years. More Mexicans are returning TO Mexico than are coming from Mexico. The border is simply not an issue - even if you think immigration is, that issue is solving itself. - Imigrants are a nett positive to the economy - any economy, everywhere. It's literally a law of economics than migration to your country can ONLY make everybody there RICHER. It's mathematically impossible for there to be any other outcome, and it's been proven a billion times - no country has ever had a large level of immigration that was NOT followed by growth in economic indicators and jobs. Nowhere in history has immigrants EVER taken more jobs than they created. It does not happen because it CANNOT happen. It's mathematically impossible. You can list all the numbers of pi before that will happen.
The rich have been buying government power from politicians for decades... Trump's one brilliant move was to figure out how to cut out the middle man. It is cheaper than using a politician as a power-contractor and more reliable.
Because what the world needs more than anything a rabid coyote with the nuclear launch codes...
Come now - Bernie is literally the LEAST Zionist candidate to ever run for president. His views are more in-line with the majority of Jews in America -which these days is decidedly anti-Zionist (at least the younger generation). Hell he had a major bouhaha in New York over that. While every other candidate showed up at the dinner for the Jewish Nationalists and pledged the absolute and unconditional support for Israel no matter what - Bernie refrained from going and made a speech saying support for Israel *cannot* be unconditional and should be made conditional on Israel accepting human rights requirements. So that an outcome can be reached which may actually be stable.
Bernie is literally the only candidate in the US since the very creation of Israel to EVER suggest that support for Israel be contingent on them not committing atrocities. That makes him the least zionist candidate the US has had since 1948.
>Well, you are right. It's agreeing with Trump that gets you called a racist.
Actually agreeing with Trump doesn't just get you called a racist - it makes the accusation true. How can agree with racist views and imagine you are not a racist ?
So why do you wanna be stuck in the 19th century (fossil fuels) and the early 20th (nukes) ? Sander's plank is that we, in the 21st century, should be using 21st century technology - progress in other words. Literally the opposite of what you're accusing him off.
Nope, that isn't fast enough. A casino that has the bank broken needs to pay that bet right now - and by definition the day's take, the content of the safe and their accounts are not enough to cover the debt. They can probably get a loan for the shortfall but they have expenses (lots of them) in the meantime. Everything from utilities to paying staff. They can't wait for the slot-machine pundits to replace their lost billions. It takes too long. They need enough to cover operating costs in the millions before the month ends - and enough to do so for a few months until their cash supplies are replenished.
More than one casino has ended up bankrupt after one skilled player took them to the cleaners. Of course for every casino it's happened to - a million people ended up bankrupt losing to them instead, but it does happen. Just like, now and then, somebody *does* actually win the lottery - which is actually harder since there is no way to be "better" at winning the lottery, the only way you can improve your odds (by a tiny fraction) is to buy a *lot* of tickets, yet there are jackpot winners on occasion. If you explore a massive phase space enough times, every coordinate must be hit eventually.
Neither is a good investment strategy however. It could be you - but it won't be. I wonder if people will start to get it if we explained to them that the odds of the winning numbers being 1 2 3 4 5 6 or 1 1 1 1 1 1 are exactly the same as *any* other set of six numbers. If you think those numbers are impossible coincidences that can't possibly happen - the same is true of whatever numbers you chose.
Oh come on, men who actually plead guilty get away with a slap on the wrist. Take this guy for example - pleaded guilty to sexually assaulting and attempting to rape a 15 year old girl (he was more than 10 years older) and got away with a fine... a fucking fine, and he still has a high paying job - which includes being the public spokesman for his company ! http://mg.co.za/article/2007-1...
Considering how mild the punishments are for people who are guilty (and even admitted it in court by pleading guilty)... all the bullshit about the horror of false accusations simply don't hold water.
Fix the problems of victim-blaming, figure out better ways to determine whether there was true consent - solve the problems that allow rapists to consistently get away with it and be defended by society and when you've done all that... THEN you will have a valid case to treat false accusations as a problem.
Nobody thinks they never happen - but frankly every other problem related to sexual assault, consent and rape is so massively bigger that they are simply not worthy of concern. Hell men GET RAPED more often than they are falsely accused of it.
There are a million jokes about prison rape... men are petrified of going to prison and being in an area where there is a constant risk of being raped. Most prisoners are not rapists - but it only takes a few to make all the others victims. That image men have of what it's like to be in prison where you can't escape from those few and are likely to be a victim... that's the whole world for women. The vast majority of men are not rapist, but the few that are face so little punishment, so little risk of even being caught let alone convicted and such high odds of being protected - that the whole world is a constant threat of rape to women anyway because the few bastards who do are not put away. And every man who defends that status quo is complicit in it.
I'm a male feminist because I have a 2 year old girl and I want her to grow up in a world where that's not true anymore.
>The example you used of suffering from reporting a rape is extreme No, it's really not - it's what happens in the vast majority of cases. It's incredibly rare that people do NOT ask questions like "what was she wearing" or "was she drinking". Such questions are extremely wrong. It doesn't matter what SHE did - it's NEVER part of the issue. The ONLY valid questions are what HE did and whether she WANTED him to and said so while sober and of sound mind (a person who is drunk cannot consent to sex - it's not legally possible anywhere in the free world and it's about time we enforce that law). Blaming the victim starts with questions like that, and if people don't like the answers it INVARIABLY leads to blaming her for ruining the man's life - with no regard for her own.
> is not a situation a false accuser is going to get in in the first place. Of course she is ! Why would you possibly imagine that victim blamers will only blame the victim when she's real ?
>However, you seem to have your mind completely made up, without the need for facts. I'm the one who is STATING facts. The MRA's paranoia is NOT based on facts - it's a story made up to demonize women and convince people that equal rights is a bad idea and that raping is their birth-rate. The man more than anybody responsible for telling everybody that false rapes are this big a concern - is the SAME man who wrote publicly that raping somebody in a private residence should be legal.
>Some of them are hiding their wealth to protect their families.
Nobody minds that... the thing is though, that problem only exists because the kidnappers and extortionist are able to hide THEIR money... through the exact same services actually.
Bloody hell Noriega himself got funded through these lawyers - as did the contras during the Iran/Contra scandal...
Let me put it this way: if this leak had happened before Reagan died, he would have been on trial for high treason (as he should have been in the first place) and with aggravating circumstances for getting Oliver North to take the fall for him.
Slashdot Mirror
Those are things we need to get government to do. Google cannot do them. It can howevee mitigate the harm by choosing not to market companies that makes things worse.
I really do not want to live in a world where companies have more power than that.
Bankruptcy = having your assets siezed to settle as much debt as possible in return for not having to pay all of it. I.e losing everything you ever had.
You demanded a citation then gave name of the process you wanted as a solution !
Bankruptcy is only an improvement over being jailed for debt. It is not a good thing.
You want viable solutionsq ? Welfare based emergency aid finance. Nonprofit interest free loan organisations. Universal basic income. There you go. Three possible viable solutions. Why would you keep defending something that makes the problem worse ? People need a way to avoid bankruptcy and you are pointing at something that accelerates it and calling that a solution.
Just to underscore how bad bankruptcy is: every job Ive had in ten years came with a mandatory credit check. I earn a high income now and own multiple investments. Had I gone bankrupt I would still be earning minimum wage because I wasnt that good with money at age 19... bankruptcy is often a permanent poverty trap.
Predators are not a solution. A solution by definition is NOT something that makes the original problem (lack of money in this case) worse.
In my youth on a tiny starting salary I fell short of money once. I went to a payday loan company because I didnt know better. But because tge charges were so high I was even more short the next month... after six months I would actuallt need to borrow more than my salary to cover the shortfall...
I was trapped with zero way out. My problem was not solved - it was exacerbated. I was lucky. I could go hat in hand to my dad, admit I fucked up and asked for help. He paid off the loan. Gave me enough money to get to payday. Helped me work work out a budget I could survice on including a manageable repayment to him. I paid back every penny.
Most people they prey on do not have somebody else who can throw down a rope when they are finally dug in so deep they realize there is no way out. I got my ego bruised and learned some hard lessons. Most people lose everything they ever had. That is not a fucking solution. I had upper middle class parents. Most of their customers do not.
> They have a long way to go but at least i'm no longer spammed with endless ads about my penis size
Even spammers know a lost cause when they see one :P
>Do you really want Google to censor legal ads that it feels are immoral or unethical?
Yes.
>If so then everyone should have the right to censor.
Everyone already does - to exactly the same extent google does. Can I DEMAND that you keep hardcore German fetish porn mags on your coffee table ? Or is it your right to choose NOT to have it in your house if you don't want to ? For that matter can I FORCE you to keep a Bible in your house where it is prominently visible to all visitors ?
No I can do none of that because you have the right to censor the media inside your own home. You have a right to choose what messages you want to convey to people on your property.
What you are effectively saying is that private companies and citizens should not be allowed to choose what messages they want to promote on their private property. If you seriously believe that then I expect a picture from you within 24 hours showing a massive sign encouraging everybody to join the church of scientology painted on all your outside walls. Not because I like the church of scientology but because I'm pretty sure you don't - and you should not be allowed to censor my sudden desire to promote them on your private property.
>As opposed to legal fraud?
Yes, for example defrauding somebody by using a legal loophole or a badly written law to avoid being prosecuted for something that is clearly "gaining his money through deceptive practices".
>Do you want Google to censor ads based on ethics?
Yes.
> If so who's ethics.
Their own. Because much as I despise their ethics on virtually every topic - it is the right of every free citizen to only allow, on their own property, behavior that accords with their own ethics and this is just about the only case where a corporation actually SHOULD have the same right as a citizen. It's google's ad network, and google's sites - and they have every right to decide what content they are willing to host on it.
Contrary to that reason article, the end of sex-work ads on craigslist did not generally move sex-workers off the internet, it merely moved them to other publications. In a particularly funny version - when South African classified site "gumtree" banned sex-work ads, a site was formed within a week dedicated to sex-work classifieds... it was called (you can't make this shit up) cumtree.
Only if getting rid of the predators is all you do - sane people consider that step one.
First get rid of the predators, then establish something better in it's place.
Like say - a cooperative zero-interest bank that can give out emergency loans or a working social safety net that protects people from NEEDING payday loans to survive ?
A helluva lot of cars out there today are not automatic. You do know that manual cars can be left in neutral as well right ?
In most countries it is illegal to park facing oncoming traffic as there is no safe way to drive off later.
"Mental gymnastics": to read actual facts by experts in the field backed up by solid empirical evidence
- From the ganjadude dictionary of stupid
EVERYTHING he has said IS racist. Your failure to recognize it as such means YOU are a racist as well. EVERY non racist can see that those are racist views !
Erm - judicial elections, where they exist, have been around for centuries. They aren't a new invention replacing more typical selection processes that were in place within our lifetime. The incumbent was either elected or appointed BY somebody elected. The length of the chain may vary but it does nothing about idiot likelihood, quite the opposite in fact. When a single judge chooses the next judge (as opposed to a council) he is incredibly likely to choose one that shares his personal idiocies.
>both people are guilty of rape
True - but in that case it doesn't make much sense to prosecute either one and generally neither are.
>both my wife and I have raped each other by initiating sex without spoken consent.
Nowhere did I say it has to be a VERBAL yes, though whenever you are with somebody you do not know very well you SHOULD insist on that. It's one thing to read non-verbal qeues from a spouse you know well - it's quite another with somebody else, and it's way to easy to claim you misinterpreted a "no" as a "yes" so we MUST side with the accuser in those cases. If you insist on a verbal "yes" with any hookups or casual sex you are entirely in the clear. Oh and that's a "yes" for every activity - not just a "yes" to sex. Just because a girl is happy to blow you doesn't mean she wants penetration - and assuming so is still rape. And it's not MY definition - it's the law, all over the free world and has been for decades. That you don't know this is exactly why we have a problem.
> While you recognize that men get raped, you refer only to men raping women.
A matter of prioritization not diminishing anything. Men get raped far less often than women - so it's a far smaller problem and since resources are limited we need to focus them on the massive problem not the rare one. Especially since - most of what we can do to help with the massive problem will ALSO help with the rare one. I don't deny the severity of men being raped, or the problems associated with it - it's just that it is much rarer. Oh and 90% of the time men get raped - it is by other men, and the vast majority of those men identify as straight. I live in the rape capital of the world - in my entire life I've read of exactly ONE violent female on male rape (a gang-rape actually by several women). I read of women getting gangraped every WEEK.
>The biggest problem with rape and jurisprudence is that it's often very difficult to determine beyond a reasonable doubt whether there was consent or not
This is true - but to pretend this harms men more than women is simply ignorant. By far the worst outcome of that is the many victims who have no chance of ever seeing justice.
>More than most such problems, rape has to be dealt with by influencing the culture, and that's starting way worse than you and I like.
Finally you're saying something I entirely agree with.
Actually almost ALL of Europe does it (not as much the energy part but the other two sure).
In fact you are not doing the math right. You're looking at the expense but not counting savings. In both healthcare and education there is overwhelming empirical proof from more than 100 countries that the savings are bigger than the expense. In other words - neither will cost you anything and in fact will cost less. It costs society MORE to have people pay their own healthcare than to bulk-buy it together for everybody.
People who don't go to college end up costing taxpayers far more over a lifetime than it would have cost to send them - and contributing little, if any, taxes themselves. It's much better for you to pay a bit now to send somebody to college - and have that person pay middle class taxes for life, than to refuse to and end up subsidizing them for life (and even if you got rid of all welfare they would STILL cost you money since most of them earn less than a taxable income but they all use public services like roads and trash collection which you ONLY pay for). Do the math, a person living 50 years past high school (the average in the USA) who doesn't earn a middle class income will, over that time, cost you more than ten times what it would have cost to send them to college, and that's without factoring in inflation -when you do it gets closer to 30 times the cost over the same period. It makes no sense not to get that saving from everybody with the talents to succeed at college.
> President Obama has personally said he does not favor bringing it back in play
Because he already had the republican congress actively stalling anything he suggested just because it was him suggesting it - even when he suggested something htey had championed for years they would turn their backs on it... he really didn't need ANOTHER fight with congress.
You think being afraid of a religion is NOT bigotry ? Do you also oppose us calling homophobes bigots ?
Bigot is not a synonymn for racist.
Even then he still IS a racist, the son of a racist (look it up - Fred Trump was probably the single most racist landlord in US history and a huge Hitler sympathizer) who definitely agrees with everything daddy said. You don't have to hate a particular race to be racist, you only have to think your own is better.
I've seen trumpeters claiming he isn't a racist because "Mexican is not a race" - but considering nearly all Mexicans are not white - that doesn't change it, it's definitely STILL Racism.
Cultural supremacism is also bigotry.
Oh and some things you should know:
- Imigration rates with Mexico is negative and have been for years. More Mexicans are returning TO Mexico than are coming from Mexico. The border is simply not an issue - even if you think immigration is, that issue is solving itself.
- Imigrants are a nett positive to the economy - any economy, everywhere. It's literally a law of economics than migration to your country can ONLY make everybody there RICHER. It's mathematically impossible for there to be any other outcome, and it's been proven a billion times - no country has ever had a large level of immigration that was NOT followed by growth in economic indicators and jobs. Nowhere in history has immigrants EVER taken more jobs than they created. It does not happen because it CANNOT happen. It's mathematically impossible. You can list all the numbers of pi before that will happen.
The rich have been buying government power from politicians for decades... Trump's one brilliant move was to figure out how to cut out the middle man. It is cheaper than using a politician as a power-contractor and more reliable.
Because what the world needs more than anything a rabid coyote with the nuclear launch codes...
Come now - Bernie is literally the LEAST Zionist candidate to ever run for president. His views are more in-line with the majority of Jews in America -which these days is decidedly anti-Zionist (at least the younger generation). Hell he had a major bouhaha in New York over that. While every other candidate showed up at the dinner for the Jewish Nationalists and pledged the absolute and unconditional support for Israel no matter what - Bernie refrained from going and made a speech saying support for Israel *cannot* be unconditional and should be made conditional on Israel accepting human rights requirements. So that an outcome can be reached which may actually be stable.
Bernie is literally the only candidate in the US since the very creation of Israel to EVER suggest that support for Israel be contingent on them not committing atrocities. That makes him the least zionist candidate the US has had since 1948.
>Well, you are right. It's agreeing with Trump that gets you called a racist.
Actually agreeing with Trump doesn't just get you called a racist - it makes the accusation true. How can agree with racist views and imagine you are not a racist ?
So why do you wanna be stuck in the 19th century (fossil fuels) and the early 20th (nukes) ? Sander's plank is that we, in the 21st century, should be using 21st century technology - progress in other words. Literally the opposite of what you're accusing him off.
Nope, that isn't fast enough.
A casino that has the bank broken needs to pay that bet right now - and by definition the day's take, the content of the safe and their accounts are not enough to cover the debt. They can probably get a loan for the shortfall but they have expenses (lots of them) in the meantime. Everything from utilities to paying staff. They can't wait for the slot-machine pundits to replace their lost billions. It takes too long. They need enough to cover operating costs in the millions before the month ends - and enough to do so for a few months until their cash supplies are replenished.
More than one casino has ended up bankrupt after one skilled player took them to the cleaners. Of course for every casino it's happened to - a million people ended up bankrupt losing to them instead, but it does happen. Just like, now and then, somebody *does* actually win the lottery - which is actually harder since there is no way to be "better" at winning the lottery, the only way you can improve your odds (by a tiny fraction) is to buy a *lot* of tickets, yet there are jackpot winners on occasion. If you explore a massive phase space enough times, every coordinate must be hit eventually.
Neither is a good investment strategy however. It could be you - but it won't be. I wonder if people will start to get it if we explained to them that the odds of the winning numbers being 1 2 3 4 5 6 or 1 1 1 1 1 1 are exactly the same as *any* other set of six numbers. If you think those numbers are impossible coincidences that can't possibly happen - the same is true of whatever numbers you chose.
Oh come on, men who actually plead guilty get away with a slap on the wrist.
Take this guy for example - pleaded guilty to sexually assaulting and attempting to rape a 15 year old girl (he was more than 10 years older) and got away with a fine... a fucking fine, and he still has a high paying job - which includes being the public spokesman for his company !
http://mg.co.za/article/2007-1...
Considering how mild the punishments are for people who are guilty (and even admitted it in court by pleading guilty)... all the bullshit about the horror of false accusations simply don't hold water.
Fix the problems of victim-blaming, figure out better ways to determine whether there was true consent - solve the problems that allow rapists to consistently get away with it and be defended by society and when you've done all that... THEN you will have a valid case to treat false accusations as a problem.
Nobody thinks they never happen - but frankly every other problem related to sexual assault, consent and rape is so massively bigger that they are simply not worthy of concern. Hell men GET RAPED more often than they are falsely accused of it.
There are a million jokes about prison rape... men are petrified of going to prison and being in an area where there is a constant risk of being raped. Most prisoners are not rapists - but it only takes a few to make all the others victims. That image men have of what it's like to be in prison where you can't escape from those few and are likely to be a victim... that's the whole world for women. The vast majority of men are not rapist, but the few that are face so little punishment, so little risk of even being caught let alone convicted and such high odds of being protected - that the whole world is a constant threat of rape to women anyway because the few bastards who do are not put away. And every man who defends that status quo is complicit in it.
I'm a male feminist because I have a 2 year old girl and I want her to grow up in a world where that's not true anymore.
>The example you used of suffering from reporting a rape is extreme
No, it's really not - it's what happens in the vast majority of cases. It's incredibly rare that people do NOT ask questions like "what was she wearing" or "was she drinking". Such questions are extremely wrong. It doesn't matter what SHE did - it's NEVER part of the issue. The ONLY valid questions are what HE did and whether she WANTED him to and said so while sober and of sound mind (a person who is drunk cannot consent to sex - it's not legally possible anywhere in the free world and it's about time we enforce that law). Blaming the victim starts with questions like that, and if people don't like the answers it INVARIABLY leads to blaming her for ruining the man's life - with no regard for her own.
> is not a situation a false accuser is going to get in in the first place.
Of course she is ! Why would you possibly imagine that victim blamers will only blame the victim when she's real ?
>However, you seem to have your mind completely made up, without the need for facts.
I'm the one who is STATING facts. The MRA's paranoia is NOT based on facts - it's a story made up to demonize women and convince people that equal rights is a bad idea and that raping is their birth-rate. The man more than anybody responsible for telling everybody that false rapes are this big a concern - is the SAME man who wrote publicly that raping somebody in a private residence should be legal.
Your mistake is thinking the incumbent was not the complete idiot.
>Some of them are hiding their wealth to protect their families.
Nobody minds that... the thing is though, that problem only exists because the kidnappers and extortionist are able to hide THEIR money... through the exact same services actually.
Bloody hell Noriega himself got funded through these lawyers - as did the contras during the Iran/Contra scandal...
Let me put it this way: if this leak had happened before Reagan died, he would have been on trial for high treason (as he should have been in the first place) and with aggravating circumstances for getting Oliver North to take the fall for him.