I was paying heed to the radical feminist thinking that has led to the radical definition of rape in question, but I'm standing by my personal opinion that the crime of rape should include some type of force or credible coercion. and THAT should be severely punished.
'Sickness' and 'degradation' in the usual meaning of the terms. I am no expert on radical feminist thought, but these ills are postulated as a product of the patriarchal social system, in essence the extensive reliance upon force and coercion, domination and violence to achieve ends as opposed to cooperative, equitable, respectful arrangements. It further contains the notion that those that think such a world is hopelessly idealistic are victims of a cultural feedback mechanism, rather than it being the result of any inherent genetic necessity.
Moving past assuming what actually happened in this case, what is most interesting to me is the definition of rape that is being put forward by Sweden. I have sympathy for the plight of women attempting to navigate a world of physically stronger men, backed by a culture of men all telling themselves they are in charge, quickly resorting to terrorism and committed to violence as needed. Certain feminist thought very much identifies this social feedback loop as a primary cause not just of women's oppression, but of sick relationships and a sick society in general. But using the patriarchal means of arrest and incarceration to address this is not well thought out imho, like training your dog by beating it. and tangential to this, making genuine reform all the more difficult, this first test of a bleeding edge law protecting women is sold cheap by a hack politician to please some powerful men in Washington. May his head explode and may all men and women of good nature and intent see the purveyors of this old world for what they are, small -minded, greedy and the purveyors of sickness and degradation for women AND men.
As far as I can tell, it's rape because some politician insisted that he be charged with it. While what he said she should say may or may not be what actually occurred, your hypothetical is nonetheless a bit radical unless there is also some form of physical or psychological force in play as well. And having them be actually upset afterwards would also help align it with the real world.
Though political vengeance is clearly at the root of this case, he is charged of violating a bona fide Swedish law, rape, a law that is being roundly derided for its uniquely broad, (revolutionary) definition. It hasn't actually been tried in court before from what i've read. I knew a radical feminist years back who explained to me why male on female sex is intrinsically violent and debasing to women. It is one of those times when logic works, but fails to persuade.
Concentration of power is indeed the main problem facing societies, but equating that with Socialism is Fox-news-level political analysis; (the horror stories of totalitarian Communist regimes force fed to us as children have stealthily morphed into simply, "Socialism"). As Antisyzygy notes, Europe and Canada enjoy far better conditions than US citizens do, and the concentration of power in the USA is about as unhealthy as it can get, (and is imploding). If one is stuck with 'concentration of power' (a logical, natural tendency), then Socialism has the advantage of assuring that at least certain basic needs are dispersed to all citizens, as opposed to the jungle we have clawed our way out of. Social Libertarianism is another animal again, Anarcho-syndicalism holds the most promise for my money. It's biggest problem is violent suppression by concentrated power (Capitalists).
The actual facts, (whether she was truly asleep, whether he was actually having intercourse with her asleep) are irrevocably tainted by the fact that the charges were fabricated WAY after the fact. that is, AFTER celebrating her tryst, AFTER discovering he wasn't faithful, AFTER going to the newspaper, AFTER getting 'advice' from prosecutors, AFTER a politician made sure to see to it that Julian Assange was charged with rape despite the refusal by the chief prosecutor. IOW, both women have zero credibility.
It is a revolutionary interpretation of the events, (given what what is publicly known and generally agreed upon in the Western world), to charge Assange with rape, or even molestation. It is also revolutionary feminism, to shift mores such that all sexual behavior conforms to these standards. tricky stuff, i applaud any increase of awareness and care for our fellow humans and having this discussion has no doubt helped raise the human race up a notch. But at the same time, i abhor the method of a political show trial to push an elite agenda. (though it is obviously being done by corrupt Swedish bootlicking politicos to avenge an illegitimate hegemony, rather than for anything socially redeeming)
i took the exact opposite strategy decades ago and became, for want of a better word, Godlike. I smell great too. (that's what all the gorgeous women tell me anyway)
You are stating articles of faith, but in reality it's improbable that it went down by the book. Though I agree that 'entering houses willy-nilly" is not the norm, that leaves plenty to be concerned about. It IS normal that police break the rules routinely, they perjure themselves on the witness stand, fabricate evidence, torture suspects, entrap, enforce political agendas and act in contempt of democratic principles and justice as a RULE...and "the code" insures that it will rarely is discovered. Police work for the politicians who work for the elite. Cynical, but true.
it is worth noting the outliers are now the few remaining in the lower left. These are the countries whose political systems most interfere with market forces and prevent their citizens from being productive. No, those blue dots down there are Africa. Capitalist 'market forces' depend completely upon exploitation of human and natural resources. Those blue dots are unorganized resistance to 'market forces'.
Other such shit in that film was commentary on the Iraqi war. Seriously? Moore showed the world that the Iraqis were quite happy and carefree under Saddam, and that deposing him destroyed their lives.
Life in Iraq was in fact peaceful and happy for the vast majority, invading and deposing Saddam did indeed destroy their lives. (and that's referring to the Iraqi's still living) Iraq continues to be a living hell far worse off than prior. It was a crime against humanity and continues to be horrible beyond belief.
(at least you seem qualified to pass judgement on what is and isn't biased screed)
What purpose is served in releasing the fact that Hilary Clinton worries about the mental health of other world leaders? How does that aid in our international relations?
That's just one of 1000's of items that were released that are not crimes, are not important for the American people to know, and still undermine our government's ability to operate on the world stage.
It is quite possible that the wikileaks editorial board has made a decision to NOT be the arbiter of what is good or bad for any gov in particular and is limiting their editing to names of persons who may be endangered. Releasing them in bulk is a neutral stance which lends them credibility.
You may be operating from the assumption that USGov diplomacy is by definition "good", but there is also the notion that allowing all the parties in question to have greater clarity about the truth will lead to superior results for all concerned.
He is also not a cheap machine-cog Right v Left politician. He has lots of anachronistic features better described by Libertarianism cum Lunacy, god love 'im.
absolutely not. i need to rephrase that; "it doesn't surprise me that they put him in jail". similar to our own red scare, a govt. reflexively shuts down anything that appears to be a significant threat to the status quo. The Wikileaks War says it all, no? the "openness" meme is a gigantic threat. And a LOT of people support that 'feature' of a government, shutting down sedition, as things can get bloody real quick. at the same time, I believe in a decentralized democratic State, we're all way too evil to trust.
Your reliance on imperious bluster belies your weakness in this area. I rarely cast pearls before swine, but for less aggravated listeners i would like to mention that equating a farmer with a banker is laughable (without even asking how the farmer managed to acquire his land, tractors and seed). Primarily in how much WORK each one does in the creation of value. Living as Westerners mostly do, in the narrower end of the pyramid, it is easy to disconnect and make excuses for the abundance, but it actually comes from someone else's hard work, somewhere. That is not an equitable nor sustainable situation, which history also tells us!
Slashdot Mirror
voting lends an air of credibility to the scam.
No, that one is pure old school hypocrisy, aka "lying sack of shit"
Here's the part that the breathless patriarch skips right past: "deeply unpopular with Zimbabweans"
Companies have claimed the right to monitor your communication, and your urine. Why would they do that?
elect better people? havent we been trying that for over 200 years?
insanity: doing the same thing and expecting a different result.
seems to me that the _only_ possible way to make our servants accountable, (and honest and lawful) is to increase transparency, top to bottom.
I was paying heed to the radical feminist thinking that has led to the radical definition of rape in question, but I'm standing by my personal opinion that the crime of rape should include some type of force or credible coercion. and THAT should be severely punished.
'Sickness' and 'degradation' in the usual meaning of the terms. I am no expert on radical feminist thought, but these ills are postulated as a product of the patriarchal social system, in essence the extensive reliance upon force and coercion, domination and violence to achieve ends as opposed to cooperative, equitable, respectful arrangements. It further contains the notion that those that think such a world is hopelessly idealistic are victims of a cultural feedback mechanism, rather than it being the result of any inherent genetic necessity.
Moving past assuming what actually happened in this case, what is most interesting to me is the definition of rape that is being put forward by Sweden. I have sympathy for the plight of women attempting to navigate a world of physically stronger men, backed by a culture of men all telling themselves they are in charge, quickly resorting to terrorism and committed to violence as needed. Certain feminist thought very much identifies this social feedback loop as a primary cause not just of women's oppression, but of sick relationships and a sick society in general. But using the patriarchal means of arrest and incarceration to address this is not well thought out imho, like training your dog by beating it.
and tangential to this, making genuine reform all the more difficult, this first test of a bleeding edge law protecting women is sold cheap by a hack politician to please some powerful men in Washington. May his head explode and may all men and women of good nature and intent see the purveyors of this old world for what they are, small -minded, greedy and the purveyors of sickness and degradation for women AND men.
As far as I can tell, it's rape because some politician insisted that he be charged with it. While what he said she should say may or may not be what actually occurred, your hypothetical is nonetheless a bit radical unless there is also some form of physical or psychological force in play as well. And having them be actually upset afterwards would also help align it with the real world.
Though political vengeance is clearly at the root of this case, he is charged of violating a bona fide Swedish law, rape, a law that is being roundly derided for its uniquely broad, (revolutionary) definition. It hasn't actually been tried in court before from what i've read.
I knew a radical feminist years back who explained to me why male on female sex is intrinsically violent and debasing to women. It is one of those times when logic works, but fails to persuade.
you're doing it wrong
Concentration of power is indeed the main problem facing societies, but equating that with Socialism is Fox-news-level political analysis; (the horror stories of totalitarian Communist regimes force fed to us as children have stealthily morphed into simply, "Socialism"). As Antisyzygy notes, Europe and Canada enjoy far better conditions than US citizens do, and the concentration of power in the USA is about as unhealthy as it can get, (and is imploding).
If one is stuck with 'concentration of power' (a logical, natural tendency), then Socialism has the advantage of assuring that at least certain basic needs are dispersed to all citizens, as opposed to the jungle we have clawed our way out of. Social Libertarianism is another animal again, Anarcho-syndicalism holds the most promise for my money. It's biggest problem is violent suppression by concentrated power (Capitalists).
The actual facts, (whether she was truly asleep, whether he was actually having intercourse with her asleep) are irrevocably tainted by the fact that the charges were fabricated WAY after the fact. that is, AFTER celebrating her tryst, AFTER discovering he wasn't faithful, AFTER going to the newspaper, AFTER getting 'advice' from prosecutors, AFTER a politician made sure to see to it that Julian Assange was charged with rape despite the refusal by the chief prosecutor.
IOW, both women have zero credibility.
It is a revolutionary interpretation of the events, (given what what is publicly known and generally agreed upon in the Western world), to charge Assange with rape, or even molestation. It is also revolutionary feminism, to shift mores such that all sexual behavior conforms to these standards.
tricky stuff, i applaud any increase of awareness and care for our fellow humans and having this discussion has no doubt helped raise the human race up a notch. But at the same time, i abhor the method of a political show trial to push an elite agenda. (though it is obviously being done by corrupt Swedish bootlicking politicos to avenge an illegitimate hegemony, rather than for anything socially redeeming)
i took the exact opposite strategy decades ago and became, for want of a better word, Godlike. I smell great too. (that's what all the gorgeous women tell me anyway)
You are stating articles of faith, but in reality it's improbable that it went down by the book. Though I agree that 'entering houses willy-nilly" is not the norm, that leaves plenty to be concerned about. It IS normal that police break the rules routinely, they perjure themselves on the witness stand, fabricate evidence, torture suspects, entrap, enforce political agendas and act in contempt of democratic principles and justice as a RULE...and "the code" insures that it will rarely is discovered. Police work for the politicians who work for the elite. Cynical, but true.
it is worth noting the outliers are now the few remaining in the lower left. These are the countries whose political systems most interfere with market forces and prevent their citizens from being productive.
No, those blue dots down there are Africa. Capitalist 'market forces' depend completely upon exploitation of human and natural resources. Those blue dots are unorganized resistance to 'market forces'.
aside from being exploited virtually continuously by wealthier nations, been largely left behind.
aside from? how about; _as a result of_
modern medicine and treatments are easy to import, if you have money. but they are poor, so how do they do it?
You know that the republicans actively tried to prevent the collapse several times in 2004 and 2006 yet were blocked by democrats, right?
I did not, please enlighten.
one small comment on your mostly fact-free rant:
Other such shit in that film was commentary on the Iraqi war. Seriously? Moore showed the world that the Iraqis were quite happy and carefree under Saddam, and that deposing him destroyed their lives.
Life in Iraq was in fact peaceful and happy for the vast majority, invading and deposing Saddam did indeed destroy their lives. (and that's referring to the Iraqi's still living) Iraq continues to be a living hell far worse off than prior. It was a crime against humanity and continues to be horrible beyond belief.
(at least you seem qualified to pass judgement on what is and isn't biased screed)
What purpose is served in releasing the fact that Hilary Clinton worries about the mental health of other world leaders? How does that aid in our international relations? That's just one of 1000's of items that were released that are not crimes, are not important for the American people to know, and still undermine our government's ability to operate on the world stage.
It is quite possible that the wikileaks editorial board has made a decision to NOT be the arbiter of what is good or bad for any gov in particular and is limiting their editing to names of persons who may be endangered. Releasing them in bulk is a neutral stance which lends them credibility.
You may be operating from the assumption that USGov diplomacy is by definition "good", but there is also the notion that allowing all the parties in question to have greater clarity about the truth will lead to superior results for all concerned.
as they say; "The truth cuts only to cure"
amen.
He is also not a cheap machine-cog Right v Left politician. He has lots of anachronistic features better described by Libertarianism cum Lunacy, god love 'im.
absolutely not. i need to rephrase that; "it doesn't surprise me that they put him in jail". similar to our own red scare, a govt. reflexively shuts down anything that appears to be a significant threat to the status quo. The Wikileaks War says it all, no? the "openness" meme is a gigantic threat.
And a LOT of people support that 'feature' of a government, shutting down sedition, as things can get bloody real quick.
at the same time, I believe in a decentralized democratic State, we're all way too evil to trust.
Your reliance on imperious bluster belies your weakness in this area. I rarely cast pearls before swine, but for less aggravated listeners i would like to mention that equating a farmer with a banker is laughable (without even asking how the farmer managed to acquire his land, tractors and seed). Primarily in how much WORK each one does in the creation of value. Living as Westerners mostly do, in the narrower end of the pyramid, it is easy to disconnect and make excuses for the abundance, but it actually comes from someone else's hard work, somewhere. That is not an equitable nor sustainable situation, which history also tells us!