Month: August 2012

Burglary, robbery, rape of 90 year old woman by 13 y old child. By strict liability, she is a (statutory) rapist!

Maurice McGill, 13   at the time of the alleged assault, is charged with one count each of rape, aggravated burglary, aggravated robbery, and abduction, according to the Lima Police Department.

Police say the McGill youth, who will be tried in the Allen County Juvenile Court on Aug. 13, allegedly broke into the woman’s home in the 200 block of Haller Street and sexually assaulted the victim. Boy, 13, raped woman, 90

This is an (alleged) case of forcible true rape, rape-rape in the classical sense of the word “rape”, Not one of the dozens of new versions of re-defined *rape.

A child (monster) of 13 years breaks into a house, robs, burglars, abducts and rapes an old lady. Shocking in every respect. A nightmare. In her own house she gets robbed and raped. The kid deserves strict punishment, and society deserves to be protected from such animals

Strict liability laws for statutory rape

But the 90 year old lady had sex with a 13 year old child. In many US states, this is a *strict liability crime.

So the poor old lady could be charged with child rape. Due to the extreme circumstances of the case, prosecutors were wise enough not to press charges, so our analysis is theoretical.

If you have sex with a person under the age of consent, you are a child rapist

“Strict liability crime” [1] [2] [3] [4] means: if you commit an act, (e.g. if you have sex with a mnior) you are guilty and will be convicted.  Mens rea, criminal intent is not required , no knowledge needed that you are committing a crime.

The liability is said to be strict because defendants will be convicted even though they were genuinely ignorant of one or more factors that made their acts or omissions criminal. The defendants may therefore not be culpable in any real way, i.e. there is not even criminal negligence, the least blameworthy level of mens rea. Strict liability (criminal)

Men get convicted for sex with underage women, even if they thought she was over the age of consent. Even if they have very good reasons to believe she was of age, because they met her in a 21-and-over bar with ID check. Even if she had a valid true government ID. because she duped the department of motor vehicles into giving her a incorrect age ID. It does not matter, if they had sex with a 17 year old, they are *child *rapists.

So, by modern re-definition of the word *rape, poor 90 year old lady would be a child rapist and could be indicted. She had sex with a 13 year old child (under 14 year old is a further aggravation). No criminal intent nor further proof is needed.

Maurice McGill, 13   at the time of the alleged assault, is charged with one count each of rape, aggravated burglary, aggravated robbery, and abduction, according to the Lima Police Department.

Police say the McGill youth, who will be tried in the Allen County Juvenile Court on Aug. 13, allegedly broke into the woman’s home in the 200 block of Haller Street and sexually assaulted the victim. Boy, 13, raped woman, 90

This is an (alleged) case of forcible true rape, rape-rape in the classical sense of the word “rape”, Not one of the dozens of new versions of re-defined *rape.

A child (monster) of 13 years breaks into a house, robs, burglars, abducts and rapes an old lady. Shocking in every respect. A nightmare. In her own house she gets robbed and raped. The kid deserves strict punishment, and society deserves to be protected from such animals

Strict liability laws for statutory rape

But the 90 year old lady had sex with a 13 year old child. In many US states, this is a *strict liability crime.

So the poor old lady could be charged with child rape. Due to the extreme circumstances of the case, prosecutors were wise enough not to press charges, so our analysis is theoretical.

If you have sex with a person under the age of consent, you are a child rapist

“Strict liability crime” [1] [2] [3] [4] means: if you commit an act, (e.g. if you have sex with a mnior) you are guilty and will be convicted.  Mens rea, criminal intent is not required , no knowledge needed that you are committing a crime.

The liability is said to be strict because defendants will be convicted even though they were genuinely ignorant of one or more factors that made their acts or omissions criminal. The defendants may therefore not be culpable in any real way, i.e. there is not even criminal negligence, the least blameworthy level of mens rea. Strict liability (criminal)

Men get convicted for sex with underage women, even if they thought she was over the age of consent. Even if they have very good reasons to believe she was of age, because they met her in a 21-and-over bar with ID check. Even if she had a valid true government ID. because she duped the department of motor vehicles into giving her a incorrect age ID. It does not matter, if they had sex with a 17 year old, they are *child *rapists.

So, by modern re-definition of the word *rape, poor 90 year old lady would be a child rapist and could be indicted. She had sex with a 13 year old child (under 14 year old is a further aggravation). No criminal intent nor further proof is needed.

Maurice McGill, 13   at the time of the alleged assault, is charged with one count each of rape, aggravated burglary, aggravated robbery, and abduction, according to the Lima Police Department.

Police say the McGill youth, who will be tried in the Allen County Juvenile Court on Aug. 13, allegedly broke into the woman’s home in the 200 block of Haller Street and sexually assaulted the victim. Boy, 13, raped woman, 90

This is an (alleged) case of forcible true rape, rape-rape in the classical sense of the word “rape”, Not one of the dozens of new versions of re-defined *rape.

A child (monster) of 13 years breaks into a house, robs, burglars, abducts and rapes an old lady. Shocking in every respect. A nightmare. In her own house she gets robbed and raped. The kid deserves strict punishment, and society deserves to be protected from such animals

Strict liability laws for statutory rape

But the 90 year old lady had sex with a 13 year old child. In many US states, this is a *strict liability crime.

So the poor old lady could be charged with child rape. Due to the extreme circumstances of the case, prosecutors were wise enough not to press charges, so our analysis is theoretical.

If you have sex with a person under the age of consent, you are a child rapist

“Strict liability crime” [1] [2] [3] [4] means: if you commit an act, (e.g. if you have sex with a mnior) you are guilty and will be convicted.  Mens rea, criminal intent is not required , no knowledge needed that you are committing a crime.

The liability is said to be strict because defendants will be convicted even though they were genuinely ignorant of one or more factors that made their acts or omissions criminal. The defendants may therefore not be culpable in any real way, i.e. there is not even criminal negligence, the least blameworthy level of mens rea. Strict liability (criminal)

Men get convicted for sex with underage women, even if they thought she was over the age of consent. Even if they have very good reasons to believe she was of age, because they met her in a 21-and-over bar with ID check. Even if she had a valid true government ID. because she duped the department of motor vehicles into giving her a incorrect age ID. It does not matter, if they had sex with a 17 year old, they are *child *rapists.

So, by modern re-definition of the word *rape, poor 90 year old lady would be a child rapist and could be indicted. She had sex with a 13 year old child (under 14 year old is a further aggravation). No criminal intent nor further proof is needed.

Continue reading “Burglary, robbery, rape of 90 year old woman by 13 y old child. By strict liability, she is a (statutory) rapist!”

Tony Nicklinson condemned to life of torture – by British High Court

Tony Nicklinson is a law abiding man who has done no wrong. After a stroke, his life became “pure torture”. He is locked into his body, fully lucid, unable to move anything but his eyes and part of his face, totally dependent on others to take care of him.

Human Rights obsess with the rights of criminals. It is of great concern if a murderous felon takes 5 minutes to die, suffers for 5 minutes when put to death. But if a honest, law abiding man is forced to a few decades of torture, of life and suffering against his will,  that is nobody’s concern. No animal would ever be forced or allowed to suffer in such cruel inhumane ways.

Inducing such a “locked-in syndrome” in a murderer, for 30 years, would be a much harsher punishment then swift death penalty with 2 minute death. It would be worse then 30 years in a well kept orderly prison. Putting a high cost on society and family to support the involuntary suffering is even more cruel, as cruel as medieval inquisition’s practice to bill the cost of torture to the victim and his family.

Robert Kurzban  describes how Human Society and religion have a tendency to interfere in other people’s life. With moral indignation! Philosopher *Peter Singer devotes most of his work to analyzing such life and death situations.

Thank God, there is Dignitas in Switzerland, If Tony Nicklinson has the money, if he has friendly helpers, he can travel to faraway Switzerland to end his miserable life. Hopefully those who help him on his trip will not be punished when they return to England.

The person who wishes to die meets several Dignitas personnel, in addition to an independent doctor, for a private consultation. The independent doctor assesses the evidence provided by the patient and is met on two separate occasions, with a time gap between each of the consultations.[2] Legally admissible proof that the person wishes to die is also created, i.e. a signed affidavit, countersigned by independent witnesses. In cases where a person is physically unable to sign a document, a short video film of the person is made in which they are asked to confirm their identity, that they wish to die, and that their decision is made of their own free will, without any form of coercion. Dignitas

Human-Stupidity Analysis

Tony-Nicklinson-right-to-dieThe court is formally right: it is up to lawmakers to decide on changing the laws.

Declaring the law unconstitutional would be a way out of the legal dilemma. It is sad how courts and society force people to suffer a torturous life.

We have written a about the right to die. As a Libertarian, I wish intelligent adult people could decide their own fate.

Tony Nicklinson is a law abiding man who has done no wrong. After a stroke, his life became “pure torture”. He is locked into his body, fully lucid, unable to move anything but his eyes and part of his face, totally dependent on others to take care of him.

Human Rights obsess with the rights of criminals. It is of great concern if a murderous felon takes 5 minutes to die, suffers for 5 minutes when put to death. But if a honest, law abiding man is forced to a few decades of torture, of life and suffering against his will,  that is nobody’s concern. No animal would ever be forced or allowed to suffer in such cruel inhumane ways.

Inducing such a “locked-in syndrome” in a murderer, for 30 years, would be a much harsher punishment then swift death penalty with 2 minute death. It would be worse then 30 years in a well kept orderly prison. Putting a high cost on society and family to support the involuntary suffering is even more cruel, as cruel as medieval inquisition’s practice to bill the cost of torture to the victim and his family.

Robert Kurzban  describes how Human Society and religion have a tendency to interfere in other people’s life. With moral indignation! Philosopher *Peter Singer devotes most of his work to analyzing such life and death situations.

Thank God, there is Dignitas in Switzerland, If Tony Nicklinson has the money, if he has friendly helpers, he can travel to faraway Switzerland to end his miserable life. Hopefully those who help him on his trip will not be punished when they return to England.

The person who wishes to die meets several Dignitas personnel, in addition to an independent doctor, for a private consultation. The independent doctor assesses the evidence provided by the patient and is met on two separate occasions, with a time gap between each of the consultations.[2] Legally admissible proof that the person wishes to die is also created, i.e. a signed affidavit, countersigned by independent witnesses. In cases where a person is physically unable to sign a document, a short video film of the person is made in which they are asked to confirm their identity, that they wish to die, and that their decision is made of their own free will, without any form of coercion. Dignitas 

Human-Stupidity Analysis

Tony-Nicklinson-right-to-dieThe court is formally right: it is up to lawmakers to decide on changing the laws.

Declaring the law unconstitutional would be a way out of the legal dilemma. It is sad how courts and society force people to suffer a torturous life.

We have written a about the right to die. As a Libertarian, I wish intelligent adult people could decide their own fate.

Tony Nicklinson is a law abiding man who has done no wrong. After a stroke, his life became “pure torture”. He is locked into his body, fully lucid, unable to move anything but his eyes and part of his face, totally dependent on others to take care of him.

Human Rights obsess with the rights of criminals. It is of great concern if a murderous felon takes 5 minutes to die, suffers for 5 minutes when put to death. But if a honest, law abiding man is forced to a few decades of torture, of life and suffering against his will,  that is nobody’s concern. No animal would ever be forced or allowed to suffer in such cruel inhumane ways.

Inducing such a “locked-in syndrome” in a murderer, for 30 years, would be a much harsher punishment then swift death penalty with 2 minute death. It would be worse then 30 years in a well kept orderly prison. Putting a high cost on society and family to support the involuntary suffering is even more cruel, as cruel as medieval inquisition’s practice to bill the cost of torture to the victim and his family.

Robert Kurzban  describes how Human Society and religion have a tendency to interfere in other people’s life. With moral indignation! Philosopher *Peter Singer devotes most of his work to analyzing such life and death situations.

Thank God, there is Dignitas in Switzerland, If Tony Nicklinson has the money, if he has friendly helpers, he can travel to faraway Switzerland to end his miserable life. Hopefully those who help him on his trip will not be punished when they return to England.

The person who wishes to die meets several Dignitas personnel, in addition to an independent doctor, for a private consultation. The independent doctor assesses the evidence provided by the patient and is met on two separate occasions, with a time gap between each of the consultations.[2] Legally admissible proof that the person wishes to die is also created, i.e. a signed affidavit, countersigned by independent witnesses. In cases where a person is physically unable to sign a document, a short video film of the person is made in which they are asked to confirm their identity, that they wish to die, and that their decision is made of their own free will, without any form of coercion. Dignitas 

Human-Stupidity Analysis

Tony-Nicklinson-right-to-dieThe court is formally right: it is up to lawmakers to decide on changing the laws.

Declaring the law unconstitutional would be a way out of the legal dilemma. It is sad how courts and society force people to suffer a torturous life.

We have written a about the right to die. As a Libertarian, I wish intelligent adult people could decide their own fate.

Continue reading “Tony Nicklinson condemned to life of torture – by British High Court”

Should black passengers be allowed to sit next to unaccompanied children? (Virgin Airlines ordered Fireman Johnny McGirr to sit away from unaccompanied minor)

An Australian airline’s policy prohibiting black passengers from sitting next to kids traveling alone has fueled a social media firestorm and caused the company to review the rule..

colored-people-only

Which raises more questions such as:

Should black men be allowed to sit next to white women?

Blacks are a protected class and must not be discriminated against. So you know that these headline is just a "joke" to get your attention.

But "males" are not a protected class. One can discriminate at will against men. So watch how the following headline looks much more acceptable. In our headline we just changed the word "male" for "black"

This identical question is from reputable and politically correct CNN.com:

Should male passengers be allowed to sit next to unaccompanied children?

An Australian airline’s policy prohibiting male passengers from sitting next to kids traveling alone has fueled a social media firestorm and caused the company to review the rule.

It is unusual that this is causing a firestorm. Because such policies have been in force everywhere. Including rules that fathers get accosted for photographing their own daughters or for shopping in little girls’ lingerie departments.

Responding to the Virgin Airlines misandry

We need to get across to anyone willing to listen that under the guise of protecting children, policies like this do terrible damage to them. When we institutionalize the notion that men aren’t fit to be around children, we do nothing but solidify eons-old gender stereotypes that keep men from assuming their proper roles as co-parents and that confine them to the workplace. And since someone has to take care of the children, that task will continue to fall to women, as it always has. No one benefits from this wrong-headed policy, least of all our kids.

Virgin Airlines ordered Fireman Johnny McGirr to sit away from unaccompanied minor and change seats with a woman

An Australian airline is reviewing its policy prohibiting men from sitting next to a child flying alone after a Sydney fireman complained about being removed from his seat on a flight earlier this year.

It is well-known that while flying home on Virgin Australia from Brisbane in April, a 33-year-old man was forced to move his seat because he was sitting next to two boys he estimated to be aged between eight and ten, and it is against the airline’s policy for men to sit next to unaccompanied children. USA Today

Continue reading “Should black passengers be allowed to sit next to unaccompanied children? (Virgin Airlines ordered Fireman Johnny McGirr to sit away from unaccompanied minor)”

Women can stop rape! Don’t drink, don’t get raped! Simple.

A woman drinks alcohol at a party. She has sex with a man. The next day she wakes up and feels raped. Modern *rape laws agree that she was raped. She can get the man convicted for consented-to-sex-but-consent-was-invalid-due-to-alcohol rape. 1  2 3

Consensual date rape can is preventable and can be totally avoided.

women-decides-about-reproductionThis rape could have been avoided with 100% certainty. Had she not consented, she would not have been raped. Had the woman not drunk, she would not have been raped.

  1. Either she might have consented, when sober, just as she consented when drunk. Sober consent would be valid (because she was totally sober). No-one else to blame but herself for having consented to the sex act. No rape would have happened.
  2. Or she would not have consented to sex, when sober, and the sex would not have happened. Thus no rape would have happened.
    1. If she insists on drinking, she could have an analogy to the "designated driver", a sober friend that has the instructions not to let her go home with anyone, rather to deliver her home safely. This can be easily enforced, the sober friend just can drop the message, to potential suitors, that she is unable to consent and any sexual act will be prosecuted as rape, to the fullest extent of the law.
    2. Does this sound confusing? Well, modern rape does not require the women to resist. It does not even require the woman to say "no". A woman that enthusiastically consents to sex, even a woman that takes initiative to have sex against a man’s wish, can be a rape victim if she was drunk (out of her own volition to drink) or if she is under the age of consent.

"Rape" was clearly defined for 2000 years, until re-definition 50 years ago

We should revert the feminist language abuse that confuses clear terms like *consent and creates such language monsters like "invalid consent rape",

Some of the 20 types of *rape are more difficult or impossible to eradicate. Forcible rape, which involves threat of true violence. Clear, explicit, true non-*consensual rape is harder to avoid. This confounding of forcible rape with other consensual forms of rape is an offense to victims of true forcible rape

We should scrap the patronizing laws that consider women un-empowered, not responsible for their own actions. So if a woman drinks, she still would be responsible for her actions. Unless if she could prove she was in a total stupor (which still is the consequence of very irresponsible behavior).

Raped men are responsible for child support

man-decides-about-his-financesMen, even when passed out drunk and raped by a women, still have to pay child support for decades.Similarly, immature boys that are statutorily raped have to pay child support. Or men whose sperm was stolen from a condom or from a sperm bank. Or when the woman "forgot" the pill on purpose or got impregnated by someone else. The man always pays child support. 

Women are not responsible for actions under their control (drinking, consenting when drunk). Men, on the other hand, are financially liable for pregnancies that arise out of none of their own fault but out of the pure fault of the woman.

Of course, in the above analysis, we resorted to logic, which is a patriarchic tool of female oppression by men.

Re-definition of the word "rape"

Discussions about rape have been obfuscated by feminist re-definition of the word "rape". "Rape" is not what it used to be.  So in discussion about rape, people usually think of real forcible rape-rape in the old sense of the word "rape". But force, or active clear non-consent have long ceased to be requirements to prove re-defined "rape".

Feminist re-definition has made our language totally confusing and changed the meaning of words like *child, *consent, sex, porn (copine scale), child porn and *rape.

Non-consensual date rape. Non-consensual forcible rape.

Not all types of *rape are totally preventable.  We will write about non-consensual rape or non-consensual date rape in another post.

Olympic political correctness: though shalt not pose with weapons, befriend rightists or joke about Blacks

The scourge of political correctness is worse then during Adolf Hitler’s Olympics. In the 1936 Olympics, black Jesse Owens could participate and win a gold medal, despite Hitler’s objections. In  2012 Voula Papachristou was not so lucky. Support for a legal party that got 7% of the Greek vote plus a joke about Blacks eliminated her from the Olympic team. Voula Papachristou‘s joke was not inciting violence, it was not even derogatory or discriminatory.

Though shalt not talk about Blacks except in praise

But really this is not about discrimination. it is about the fact that blacks are sacred objects, and you do not make jokes about sacred objects. But this truth, that in liberal society blacks are sacred objects, cannot be stated aloud because it would reveal too much about the liberal order, so instead it is said that we must “never discriminate between human beings and races.” 3

So what if she was racist and decried that Africans are brining crime to Europe and should not be let in? In the liberal 1800’s or early 1900 such would be personal opinions, free speech, political opinion. Mankind fought for democratic freedom, for constitutional rights. But now, freedom is no more.

Full participation in the Olympics is only allowed to athletes who get a clean pass on political correctness. Excelling in sports is not the only pre-requisite. One needs a clean bill from the political correctness crowd.

Though shalt not pose with rifles in a US gun shop

darcy-monk-posing-in-weapons-store

Australian swimmers Nick D’Arcy and Kenrick Monk will be sent home from the London Olympics at the conclusion of their respective swimming events, the Australian Olympic Committee (AOC) has announced.

The pair came under heavy criticism after posting a photo of themselves online brandishing high-powered weapons in a US gun shop.D’Arcy and Monk to be sent home early

Though shalt not have a boyfriend with unpopular political opinions (Guilt by association)

It is not enough to be politically clean. Your friends must be politically correct too.  Befriending candidates for election is enough to get one’s Olympic stay cut short. Ever tried to find cheap housing during Olympic games, when expelled from the Olympic village?

Then there is the case of Nadja Drygalla, a rower who was pressured to leave the German Olympic team last Friday after a TV station reported that her boyfriend was Michael Fischer, who had been a candidate for the far-right National Democratic party in a regional election last year. Some also claimed Fischer had been involved in disruptive protests against immigrants.

Drygalla vehemently denied harboring any extremist views. But the news report prompted Michael Vesper, chief of the German Olympic Sports Confederation, to call her in for a long talk.

“She explained the matter from her point of view,” Vesper told journalists. “I made the problem clear to her.” According to Vesper, the rower reaffirmed her allegiance to the Olympic Charter, and he acknowledged, “I have no doubt that she not only stands upon the foundation of the German constitution but also on that of the Olympic values.” But then Drygalla announced she was “voluntarily” leaving the Olympics, and Vesper accepted her “choice.”  Olympic Political Correctness (Why I take offense at the 2012 London Games)

 

The treatment of Drygalla recalls the classic “guilt by association” tactics that liberals usually rail against when the victims are Communists. The National Democratic party may be odious (government officials have labeled it anti-Semitic), but it is a legal entity with elected members in two state parliaments.

Continue reading “Olympic political correctness: though shalt not pose with weapons, befriend rightists or joke about Blacks”

Women’s 100 dash in London 2012 Olympics. Only Black finalists? Discrimination against Whites and Asians?

Blacks are the only participants in Olympic 100 m running finals, be it men’s or women’s final dashes. We dare to say the obvious, though politically incorrect and taboo.

women-100-m-dash-olympics-london-2012-black-no-white-no-asian

We tried to search Google about the races (Black, White, Asian, Hispanic) of the finalists, but this is hard to find. The runners here look black.  It is not politically correct to mention race, much less to ask why all the finalists are Black.  Wikipedia told us

Ivet Lalova the tenth fastest woman in 100 metres history, the fastest white woman in the world,[1] and finished fourth in the 100 metres and fifth in the 200 metres at the 2004 Summer Olympics.

Talking about race is a politically incorrect no-no, so much that

One may not talk about black race, iq, crime, or racing prowess. 

We do predict confidently:

Among the top 70 under 10 second runners, the only White man is Christophe Lemaitre.

When Blacks are under-represented in academic pursuits, in elite colleges, in top CEO ranks, then automatically discrimination is the presumed culprit. Race and IQ is a taboo topic. So conventional wisdom would deny any relation between race and running ability. In other words, the only acceptable explanation for lack of Whites and Asians is: Whites and Asians must be discriminated against in 100 meter running.

Whites and Asians should demand protective racial quotas. 50% of Olympic finalists should be White and Asians. Just as police officers, CEO’s, students at elite colleges have black quotas. And women in Norway and Sweden have quotas for CEO’s and politicians.

Disqualification of Chinese/Korean/Indonesian Olympic badminton teams due to stupid rules.

8 female badminton players from China, Korea, and Indonesia were disqualified and expelled from the 2010 London Olympics. Their sin: blatantly making mistakes to lose matches in order to get more desirable positions in the quarter final eliminations.

The behavior came to light, because the Korean and the Chinese teams tried to out-compete each other with ridiculous beginner’s mistakes of putting serves into the net. Both wanted to lose the game.

A video shows the Korean and Chinese badminton players try to lose in London Olympics

Korean and Chinese badminton players out-competing each other trying to lose in London Olympics

Human-Stupidity Analysis

Stupid rules give stupid results.

The rules require to give "best effort to win the match". Those who give their best effort might, at times, be forced to fight a team they would rather not fight. The loser can get the next team they prefer to compete against.

There is a simple and well known solution to this conundrum. Let the winner of a group CHOOSE the next team they want to play against.  If two group winners’ choices are contradictory, then let the one with a higher score decide. Thus winning gets rewarded.

Rewarding suboptimal behavior happens in banking, and for CEO’s. Unnecessary trading, unnecessary sales, unnecessary fusions or acquisitions yield fat commissions to bankers and sales personnel. It requires extremely good character to give unbiased investment advice, against the one’s own financial interest.  The RULES must be in ways that they reward good behavior.

It must not happen that CEO’s get fat commissions for actions that in the long run bankrupt the company.

Continue reading “Disqualification of Chinese/Korean/Indonesian Olympic badminton teams due to stupid rules.”