General discussion

  • Creator
    Topic
  • #2170812

    Morocco to change law allowing rapists to marry underage victims

    Locked

    by aidemzo_adanac ·

    Title is slightly misleading as it could mean the law now allows rapists to marry underage victims, however that has been in place for many years already, in 2004 it was amended so that each party’s family AND the victim would have to agree to the marriage, to spare the family the shame (the family not the victim, gotta focus on what’s important after all!). However there have been a few instances where the judge forced the union himself, despite arguments from both sides against it. Parents of **** victims would often agree to marriage because they were scared the daughter would never find a suited mate if she had been raped (again, men punishing the victim for the assault).

    To think such a law would have been [i]altered[/i] and not removed entirely, just 4 years ago is a bit of a shocker too. Today, Morocco is finally waking up and realizing they have old, traditional laws in place that are now changed due to last year’s suicide of teen victim, Amina al-Filali, who poisoned herself to escape the marriage she was forced into with her rapist.

    The law also allowed a rapist complete freedom if he married his victim. Now, I don’t think that would work well and it seems to have taken a long time for them to realize it. Think, if you were a loser with no hope of ever marrying a beautiful woman, why not just go and **** a cute, young girl/woman and you will not only be let off the hook but you could force her into marrying you too! I can only imagine what it would be like if they did that here, especially with so many hot movie stars and female artists in the charts. Seriously, take you pick and you’ll not only be set free but you can force her to marry you too….come to think of it, maybe Kevin Federline had heard this before too.

    “In 550 cases of the corruption of minors between 2009 and 2010, only seven were married under Article 475 of the penal code” I wonder why someone that had committed such a heinous crime would accept punishment instead? So I looked into what the punishment was. The penalty for **** is between five and 10 years in prison, but rises to 10 to 20 in the case of a minor. Wow, one minute you **** her and the next you take up to 20 years in a Moroccan prison as opposed to marrying her? The mind wanders.

    Read more: http://www.ctvnews.ca/world/morocco-to-change-law-allowing-rapists-to-marry-underage-victims-1.1125707#ixzz2Iog0ln3n

All Comments

  • Author
    Replies
    • #2443574

      Wait a minute…

      by slayer_ ·

      In reply to Morocco to change law allowing rapists to marry underage victims

      So all you have to do there is find a girl that you like, rape her, then she has to marry you?

      That’s both awesome and disturbing at the same time.
      Is that better or worse than selling women to be wives?

      • #2443560

        That was my take too!

        by aidemzo_adanac ·

        In reply to Wait a minute…

        That’s why I mentioned stars and artists. Hey, there’s Jennifer Aniston or whoever.
        What a nutty law and an old law that was merely changed in 2004 so that both ses of parent AND the victim must approve. Parents of the victim will automatically be for it as it is a disgrace to their family otherwise. The Victim would do it to save family from shame. The accused would do it for freedom, and maybe a hot young wife he couldn’t get otherwise, his parents would also go for it because it again is shame and at least it means he’s free.

        An amendment that makes no sense at all. ODDLY though, only 7 in 550 actually married for freedom. Clearly, the sentence was minimal and they weren’t actually facing 20 years in prison, otherwise she’d have to be one hell of a ratbag to take 20 years over marrying her, bit of a downer for the victim too though,. “He’d rather spend 20 years in jail than marry me?” Like him or not, that’s got some punch to it!

        Better or worse than wife sales, I guess that depends how cheap the sale is and how good the goods are. I’d have to have a really good coupon anyway.

    • #2443571

      The British poet Flecker journeyed in the Levant

      by john.a.wills ·

      In reply to Morocco to change law allowing rapists to marry underage victims

      and said (I am afraid I cannot give chapter and verse) that his experience with Moslems had heightened his estimation of Christians. One problem with Moslems is that they mistake a lot of Time-of-Darkness (i.e., pre-Moslem) practices in their various countries for Moslem law. Perhaps some Christians do something similar, but it is not so prominent with them.

    • #2443539

      Right out of the Old Testament.

      by ansugisalas ·

      In reply to Morocco to change law allowing rapists to marry underage victims

      Nice to see the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree, eh?

    • #2443503

      Oh, Ansu…

      by john.a.wills ·

      In reply to Morocco to change law allowing rapists to marry underage victims

      I admit I couldn’t give chapter and verse for my Flecker reference, but if you are going to refer to the OT you should have some idea of the part of the OT you are talking about, and there are on-line concordances to nail it down for you if you remember a word or two.

      • #2443486

        My imaginary friend can beat up your imaginary friend

        by neilb@uk ·

        In reply to Oh, Ansu…

        My own view is that this planet is used as a penal colony, lunatic asylum and dumping ground by a superior civilisation, to get rid of the undesirable and unfit. I can’t prove it, but you can’t disprove it either.

        Christopher Hitchens

        • #2443434

          Well

          by aidemzo_adanac ·

          In reply to My imaginary friend can beat up your imaginary friend

          I think I prove it, but that remains to be seen by many still.

        • #2443431

          You do your best, gotta admit it!

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to Well

          :^0

        • #2443426

          It’s effortless

          by aidemzo_adanac ·

          In reply to You do your best, gotta admit it!

          Never break a sweat!

        • #2902024

          It’s possible this is a dumping ground

          by av . ·

          In reply to My imaginary friend can beat up your imaginary friend

          Is life a gift or a sentence? It depends on who you ask. In either case, life is meant to be a learning experience that your soul needs. But why? Your soul, something that is meant to be free, is locked in a human vessel and forced to experience all the joys and pain of being human. In dreams, your soul is free, but you can’t totally leave your human vessel. You have that silver cord attached and until the PTBs decide you’re finished here, you are a prisoner.

          I can’t prove it, but its my best guess.

          AV

        • #2427749

          I don’t have a soul

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to It’s possible this is a dumping ground

          And, given that most members of those “loving” Christians and members of “the Religion of Peace” reckon that mine is going to burn in Hell for eternity, I suppose I’m pretty grateful.

          That’s no guess.

          “The only position that leaves me with no cognitive dissonance is atheism. It is not a creed. Death is certain, replacing both the siren-song of Paradise and the dread of Hell. Life on this earth, with all its mystery and beauty and pain, is then to be lived far more intensely: we stumble and get up, we are sad, confident, insecure, feel loneliness and joy and love. There is nothing more; but I want nothing more.”

          Christopher Hitchens

        • #2427761

          Is your imaginary GW/CC “friend” going to help beat up people?

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to My imaginary friend can beat up your imaginary friend

          You DO REMEMBER my GW/CC versus religion analogy, don’t you?

          You, Neil (and others), worship at the alter of Global Warming without one iota of “proof”.

          We all struggle reconciling our beliefs versus provable facts, don’t we?

          P.S. But I love your message. I even gave it a plus – pushed it to a +4!

          P.P.S. So that’s the reason for all the lunatics populating the planet earth. My only question is this: If everyone else is a lunatic dumped here by a superior civilization, where did I (the only sane one) come from?

        • #2427748

          Every now and then the PTB’s make a mistake

          by av . ·

          In reply to Is your imaginary GW/CC “friend” going to help beat up people?

          Sorry about that.

          AV

        • #2427747

          I did quote my source

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to Is your imaginary GW/CC “friend” going to help beat up people?

          The – alas – late, great anti-theist, Christopher Hitchens.

          As for your MMGW/Religion analogy, there may be some truth in what you say for some people. However, as with religions, you are known by the company you keep.

          The American Religious Right, with its policies of anti-science and anti-evolution, believe and state publicly that there is no evidence for Man influencing the climate of the planet. Now, you don’t have to believe that Earth was created in six days in order to be sceptical about climate science, but a large number of climate science deniers also happen to be evolution deniers.

          Given that I am absolutely certain that the views that some people hold on evolution are ignorant to the point of absurdity, I find that my OBJECTIVE, scientific conclusion on their attitude to and knowledge about evolution colours my more SUBJECTIVE conclusion about their attitude to and, particularly, their knowledge about Climate Change.

          Edited to simplify. If someone is demonstrably barking mad about one thing (more than one thing in the case of the American Religious Right) then you have to reckon they are barking mad about everything until proven otherwise.

        • #2427717

          climate science deniers?

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to I did quote my source

          Deniers? That’s the new buzz word for you guys. That PROVES you only repeat that which you are told. You lose credibility in my eyes, Neil, when you simply parrot what the reality deniers – the climate liars – are telling you.

          No, I’m not even close to the RR. So up yours!

          P.S. That’s MY new buzz word for you guys – Climate Liars.

        • #2427710

          I chose the word carefully. I knew you would like it!

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to climate science deniers?

          I long ago gave up posting anything serious about this subject on this site. What’s in it for me if I do? Getting called a liar whether I scatter pearls of wisdom or bird seed.

          I’m not one of “you guys”. I’m one of me. I make my own judgements about this subject, parrot nothing and, much as I do with religion, I only post when someone else starts it!

          At least I’m doing something! I drive past my local reservoir every day, and each morning I empty a bucket of water from my tap while on my way to work. If all of us did the same, these reservoirs would be full in no time. Oh, and I’ve taken the door off my fridge. What are YOU doing?

          It’s not all bad. The rise of sea level caused by Global Warming means that in a few years time the whole of Belgium could be under water. That would leave an extra Champions League place open for the Arsenal. After being toasted 1:3 at the Emirates by Bayern, that’s probably something we need.

        • #2427698

          Re: …. the whole of Belgium could be under water.

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to I chose the word carefully. I knew you would like it!

          I recently admitted that I was wrong when it came to the, so-called, war on terror, including actions in both Iraq and Afghanistan. (See the [i]Neil was right, Maxwell was wrong[/i] discussion.)

          It’s no so bad admitting one’s errors in judgment when all one had to go on was the words of others. Since 2001, I’ve learned a lot about the middle east, Islam, terrorism, the USA’s past actions, etc., and all that new found knowledge and enlightenment, combined with the benefit of hindsight, makes such an admission pretty easy.

          You also have the benefit of hindsight to make such an admission, Neil, but you’re not taking advantage of it.

          You see, Neil, I was a pretty vocal environmentalist back in the 1970s when we had that nasty brown cloud of pollution hovering over our city, when industry dumped pollutants into rivers, and other such things. And I have to say that the environmental movement worked pretty well in correcting those things. Wow! What power that gave the [i]”environmental movement”[/i].

          But just like labor unions, just like the women’s movement (please, no eggs, ladies!), just like the civil rights movement – all causes that brought about significant and much needed change – the environmental movement didn’t stop at the success it achieved. Instead, the movement(s) got drunk with power. And THEY ALL changed their respective purposes from ones that tried to make things better, to ones on a quest for power over others (and/or they all got hijacked by the politicians for that very purpose). It’s as clear to me as a Rocky Mountain lake.

          I’ve been a global warming skeptic since the early days, and I’ve spent literally hundreds of hours reading and listening to experts – REAL EXPERTS, not the politicians (and their willing accomplices in the media) – on the question. I remember the doom and gloom predictions that were made twenty five years ago. Hell, I can even document those predictions.

          I have never been proven wrong for being a skeptic. They have never been proven right for all their doom and gloom predictions.

          Neil, in the early 1980s, they were claiming that Miami would be underwater in twenty five (or so) years because of rising oceans caused by global warming. Not even close to having come true. They’ve predicted global temperature increases of many, many degrees that never happened; instead, it started cooling. Of course, they blamed global cooling on global warming; they then changed it to climate change.

          Neil, I say again. I have NEVER been proven wrong – over the past twenty five years – and you (and those of your ilk) have never been proven right. Moreover, the proven corruption, lies, misinformation, manipulations, et al, – AND [i]follow the money[/i] – should ALL provide reason to doubt those advancing the notion.

          When on earth will you take take advantage of the benefit of hindsight, admit that “they” were wrong, and that you made a mistake?

          I don’t really think you’re a climate liar. I think you’re a climate dupe. And your pride won’t let you admit it.

        • #2427657

          Climate change (or “global warming”, if you will)

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to I chose the word carefully. I knew you would like it!

          is not a political creation, climate change is real. The data is there. Scientists agree: the data indicate that the average surface temperature of the Earth is increasing. That is not, as you appear to claim, a political creation.

          Has the issue been politicized? Absolutely. Some have made outrageous claims concerning the effects of the warming. Do their claims change the data? No. Others claim the entire thing is a political creation. Do their claims change the data? No. And still others have spent vast amounts of money to convince the American populace to ignore the issue completely. Do their actions change the data? No.

        • #2427635

          Nick – You’re just like the rest

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to I chose the word carefully. I knew you would like it!

          You’re simply parroting what you’ve been told. You’ve been duped, just like the rest. That’s not intended to be an insult or anything like that; I just can’t think of a nicer way to say it.

          [i]Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect.[/i] -Mark Twain

          Since TR doesn’t play nice with my links, I cut and paste:

          [i][b]Chill out over global warming – The Denver Post [/b]

          You’ll often hear the left lecture about the importance of dissent in a free society.

          Why not give it a whirl?

          Start by challenging global warming hysteria next time you’re at a LoDo cocktail party and see what happens.

          Admittedly, I possess virtually no expertise in science. That puts me in exactly the same position as most dogmatic environmentalists who want to craft public policy around global warming fears.

          The only inconvenient truth about global warming, contends Colorado State University’s Bill Gray, is that a genuine debate has never actually taken place. Hundreds of scientists, many of them prominent in the field, agree.

          Gray is perhaps the world’s foremost hurricane expert. His Tropical Storm Forecast sets the standard. Yet, his criticism of the global warming “hoax” makes him an outcast.

          “They’ve been brainwashing us for 20 years,” Gray says. “Starting with the nuclear winter and now with the global warming. This scare will also run its course. In 15-20 years, we’ll look back and see what a hoax this was.”

          Gray directs me to a 1975 Newsweek article that whipped up a different fear: a coming ice age.

          “Climatologists,” reads the piece, “are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change. … The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.”

          Thank God they did nothing. Imagine how warm we’d be?

          Another highly respected climatologist, Roger Pielke Sr. at the University of Colorado, is also skeptical.

          Pielke contends there isn’t enough intellectual diversity in the debate. He claims a few vocal individuals are quoted “over and over” again, when in fact there are a variety of opinions.

          I ask him: How do we fix the public perception that the debate is over?

          “Quite frankly,” says Pielke, who runs the Climate Science Weblog (climatesci.atmos.colostate.edu), “I think the media is in the ideal position to do that. If the media honestly presented the views out there, which they rarely do, things would change. There aren’t just two sides here. There are a range of opinions on this issue. A lot of scientists out there that are very capable of presenting other views are not being heard.”

          Al Gore (not a scientist) has definitely been heard – and heard and heard. His documentary, “An Inconvenient Truth,” is so important, in fact, that Gore crisscrosses the nation destroying the atmosphere just to tell us about it.

          “Let’s just say a crowd of baby boomers and yuppies have hijacked this thing,” Gray says. “It’s about politics. Very few people have experience with some real data. I think that there is so much general lack of knowledge on this. I’ve been at this over 50 years down in the trenches working, thinking and teaching.”

          Gray acknowledges that we’ve had some warming the past 30 years. “I don’t question that,” he explains. “And humans might have caused a very slight amount of this warming. Very slight. But this warming trend is not going to keep on going. My belief is that three, four years from now, the globe will start to cool again, as it did from the middle ’40s to the middle ’70s.”

          Both Gray and Pielke say there are many younger scientists who voice their concerns about global warming hysteria privately but would never jeopardize their careers by speaking up.

          “Plenty of young people tell me they don’t believe it,” he says. “But they won’t touch this at all. If they’re smart, they’ll say: ‘I’m going to let this run its course.’ It’s a sort of mild McCarthyism. I just believe in telling the truth the best I can. I was brought up that way.”

          So next time you’re with some progressive friends, dissent. Tell ’em you’re not sold on this global warming stuff.

          Back away slowly. You’ll probably be called a fascist.

          Don’t worry, you’re not. A true fascist is anyone who wants to take away my air conditioning or force me to ride a bike.[/i]

          – David Harsanyi, the Denver Post

          Edited to add the writer’s information to give him due credit for a good article.

        • #2427620

          You presume much, and wrongly

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to I chose the word carefully. I knew you would like it!

          I’ve done the research. I’ve seen the data. Is it happening? Yes, it is. Will it, as Dr. Gray posits, start cooling in the next few years? That’s entirely possible; I don’t know, I’m not a climatologist.

          As for any claims that the current warming trend is a hoax, hoax this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=2stHuRMMxog

        • #2427608

          No, Nick; I do not presume too much – but you do

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to I chose the word carefully. I knew you would like it!

          First of all, your 13 second YouTube video is absolutely meaningless unless you can qualify and verify absolutely everything that went into making it – including who made it, where that person got his “data”, and so on, and so on; is the data accurate; etc.

          That’s the kind of unsubstantiated, made-up crap that convinces people like you.

          As to Dr. Gray’s prediction of a cooling trend, you say to wait and see.

          Okay. let’s wait, shall we say, five or six years? But we don’t have to wait, do we? The article and Dr. Gray’s forecast is from 2006 – almost seven years ago. What’s been the warming/cooling trend over the past seven years, Nick? We do have the benefit of hindsight, don’t we? Dr. Gray was right. And you’re not intellectually honest enough to admit it – just like everybody else, because people just don’t want to admit they were mistaken.

          By the way, the cooling trend that Dr. Gray suggested – the one that did happen? This is why “they” (the ones advancing the political agenda on the back of “environmentalism”) changed their battle cry from [i]Global Warming[/i] to [i]Climate Change[/i] – because “they” were wrong. And they use isolated weather instances as their “proof”. I can’t believe people are stupid enough to buy into it.

        • #2427601

          Nick – Re: I’ve (You’ve) done the research & seen the data

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to I chose the word carefully. I knew you would like it!

          I suppose all that research you’ve done is on breaks from your regular life’s work. So in your mind, that’s reason enough for you to stand fast and totally dismiss and ignore a person who’s studied and worked in the field for his entire career – over 50 years – and is considered one of the leading experts on the planet.

          You give yourself WAY TOO MUCH credit, dude.

          It’s like a novice home computer user presuming he knows more than a life-long IT pro who’s built computers, networks, applications, etc. for the biggest tech companies on the planet!

          I just laugh to see how smart you think you are. What you know on the subject, compared to Dr. Gray, you could fit into a thimble, and it would still rattle around like a BB in a Boxcar.

          But you’re right, he’s wrong. Okay, whatever.

        • #2427597

          Over the past seven years?

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to I chose the word carefully. I knew you would like it!

          Five of the ten hottest years on record, based on the 1901-2000 mean temperature. If that’s a cooling trend, I’m not seeing it.

          – Nine of the ten warmest years on record (based on the 1901-2000 mean global temperature) begin with the number “2”. – All ten of those warmest years on record have occurred since 1998.
          – The decade from 2000-2009 is the warmest on record (based on the 1951-1980 mean.

          Read the article at http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/jan/16/2012-10-warmest-years-on-record. The article is based on the same NOAA & NASA data used in the charts and the 13-second presentation (look familiar?) on the Wikipedia page. The sources of that data are extensively footnoted. Browse away. Have fun. (I did.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record

          Is it part of normal cyclical climate patterns? Dr. Gray seems to think so. I don’t have a problem with that; that’s what science is after the data is gathered: determining whose interpretation of the data is correct. No, I’m not as well-versed as Dr. Gray; I never claimed to be. But, to date, the data appear to contradict Dr. Gray’s seven-year-old statement.

          But you, Max, by calling the issue a hoax, seem determined to ignore that the data indicate that the global mean temperature has increased for the past 30 years.

        • #2427591

          Nick – After all this time. . . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to I chose the word carefully. I knew you would like it!

          …. you still can’t state my position or why I even care.

          I’m not going to “debate the science” with you or any other unqualified person. Post all the Guardian articles you want. It means nothing. It’s not the point.

          The issue DOES NOT belong in the political arena, and government should do NOTHING. End of story. If the people in the UK don’t like it, too friggin’ bad.

          I truly do laugh at unqualified people like you who fool yourselves into thinking you’ve figured it all out. Like I said before, you don’t know diddly squat about anything to do with “climate science” – and I don’t care how much you pretend you do – and you’ve failed to do your due diligence to seek out one or two trustworthy people who do really understand it – and then simply heed their advice and opinion.

          What’s the next unqualified debate you want to have?

          P.S. Do you want to know who’s really pulling the scams and hoax? Follow the money, Nick. Follow the money. (And anyone who claims that “big oil” is the “money” behind those challenging the notion, is an idiot.) Maybe you can start with Dr. James Hansen’s taxpayer provided $200,000 salary – someone, by the way, who refuses to debate Dr. Bill Gray.

          And then you can see who profited by all those eye-sore wind turbines littering the midwestern plains, providing very little power to very few people at HUGE taxpayer expense. It’s a damn shame what they’ve done to the Kansas and eastern Colorado landscape. And then follow the politics – and the money – behind that!

        • #2427576

          Your position is

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to I chose the word carefully. I knew you would like it!

          based in the belief that anything the government does besides defense is wrong. I have no idea how that equates to the [u]proven[/u] increases in global mean temperatures being a hoax, probably because my mind doesn’t take those twisty mountain roads.

          You called the warming a hoax; I took you at your word, that you believe there has been no warming. I presented evidence that the warming exists and is occurring. You now say that I’m unqualified to even present the conclusions reached by others and you won’t debate the science. Even when I agreed with you that the issue has been politicized,

          Ok, Max, you win. You know it all, nobody else knows anything. None of us are qualified to question your conclusions or opinions. You’re always right, the rest of us should kneel before you and kiss your feet. Government of any kind is bad, we don’t need it, and business will always do the right thing, even at the expense of profits.
          What’s next? Are you, Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy going to meet the Titanic on its arrival in New York Harbor?

        • #2427575

          Oh, and Max

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to I chose the word carefully. I knew you would like it!

          If you follow the money, it takes you to the five banks that held assets equivalent to 56% of the U.S. economy at the end of 2011: Chase, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Citigroup, and Goldman-Sachs.

          Make of that what you will.

        • #2427573

          Nick

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to I chose the word carefully. I knew you would like it!

          Re: [i]Your position is based in the belief that anything the government does besides defense is wrong.[/i]

          I’m not sure which word to apply to that comment: ignorant, disingenuous or dishonest; only you know your intent. But based on that comment, you’re obviously the kind of guy who hears (reads) [i]less government[/i], but processes [i]no government[/i]. It’s that kind of disingenuous crap that irks me when discussing anything around these threads. (But rest easy, Nick, in knowing you’re not the only disingenuous person who does it; you all do it.)

          Re: [i]I have no idea how that equates to the proven increases in global mean temperatures being a hoax, probably because my mind doesn’t take those twisty mountain roads.[/i]

          I have no idea how the first part of your sentence relates to the last part. Not to mention what you claim as “proven” is anything but, especially considering how you and those of your ilk play with words and statistics. The earth has not been “warming” (naturally or otherwise) for the last dozen (or so) years. A FACT that discredits the predictions made a dozen years ago.

          Re: [i]You called the warming a hoax; I took you at your word, that you believe there has been no warming.[/i]

          More disingenuous crap from you. You conveniently forgot the word, anthropogenic (and spare me the observation that the word has not been used in the current exchanges, but it’s assumed – unless, of course, you want to put your disingenuousness on steroids.)

          Re: [i]I presented evidence that the warming exists and is occurring. [/i]

          You presented no evidence of anthropogenic global warming. Only unfounded and unproven assertions, and flawed conclusions. Moreover, and I repeat, the earth has not been “warming” (naturally or otherwise) for the last dozen (or so) years. A FACT that discredits the predictions made a dozen years ago.

          Re: [i]You now say that I’m unqualified to even present the conclusions reached by others……[/i]

          Any fool is qualified to “present” them. But from what I’ve read about you and your career(s), you’re not qualified to determine whether or not the things you present are accurate. Are you suggesting you are?

          Re:[i] …..and you won’t debate the science. [/i]

          I’m not qualified to debate it either. But I am qualifying myself to determine it does not belong in the political arena, and to observe that politics has hijacked the issue for the sake of political expediency of the left.

          Re: [i]Even when I agreed with you that the issue has been politicized. [/i]

          Only an total idiot would not recognize how it’s been politicized, but do you agree with me that the issue does not belong in the political arena?

          Re: [i]Ok, Max, you win. You know it all, nobody else knows anything. None of us are qualified to question your conclusions or opinions. You’re always right, the rest of us should kneel before you and kiss your feet. Government of any kind is bad, we don’t need it, and business will always do the right thing, even at the expense of profits.[/i]

          Let me finish laughing. Okay, I’m done laughing. Thanks for the laugh.

          Re: [i]What’s next? Are you, Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy going to meet the Titanic on its arrival in New York Harbor?[/i]

          No, that would be Barack Obama and his merry band of progressives who like to dress up as Santa Claus (et al).

        • #2427572

          Oh, and Nick

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to I chose the word carefully. I knew you would like it!

          Re:[i] If you follow the money, it takes you to the five banks that held assets equivalent to 56% of the U.S. economy at the end of 2011: Chase, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Citigroup, and Goldman-Sachs. Make of that what you will.[/i]

          That has nothing to do with anything I’ve said (but acknowledging that you might be having trouble comprehending what I actually did say), so I’ll make nothing of it.

          You said it, so perhaps you’ll share with us what you make of it and how it has any relevance to the subject at hand

        • #2427547

          So, in other words

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to I chose the word carefully. I knew you would like it!

          You really meant “anthropogenic global warming, [u]even though you never used the word in any of your other posts[/u]. And because I chose to take your words literally, instead of reading your mind to detect “anthropogenic” in your intended meaning, I’m wrong? Meanings matter, Max; if you meant “anthropogenic”, you should have said it.

          I’ve stated many times that I don’t believe global warming was caused by humans, that the warming is a result of natural cycles. I’ve stated that human actions most likely affect the rate and amount of warming because humans are part of the ecosystem, but the evidence is not conclusive in either direction. I’ve stated that it’s possible that humans could reduce their contribution to greenhouse gases, but it would require either a return to Stone Age living or racial extinction. I’ve also stated that I seriously doubt humans can do anything to stop it. That’s been my stated position on the issue for years, Max, on these forums and others.

          Do I think government should take a position on the issue? Yes, I do, because the issue of climate change affects [b]everybody[/b]. Do I think government should do something about it? Yes, but I don’t think it should be more substantial than funding basic research into alternative energy sources. This, too, has been my stated position for years.

          As for the following the money, you’re the one who made the suggestion; if you wanted me to follow a different trail, you should have marked it. This (admittedly dated) article illustrates where the trail took me: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/12/business/energy-environment/a-cornucopia-of-help-for-renewable-energy.html

        • #2427700

          What if evolution was a new concept?

          by aidemzo_adanac ·

          In reply to climate science deniers?

          What if just 20 years ago, they came up with the notion that God didn’t create the universe? Would the right still be right? or would the right consider others to be [b]Evolution Liars[/b] (LOL, I couldn’t find the old thread, bummer!)

          Besides the desire for faith or belief, good will to all men, a group of like minded and friendly individuals that congregate and share stories and songs, are there still people who actually believe the the universe was created by God?

          I understand that someone following such faith would need to accept that God created the universe but does anyone REALLY still believe it, deep down inside and not just for the benefit of others who like to share weekends in prayer for the benefit of shared/communal faith? (48 words, with only one comma!)

        • #2427701

          LOL

          by aidemzo_adanac ·

          In reply to I did quote my source

          Anti-evolution! LOL. I can just see the grad class taking their final exams.

          How was the world formed?
          God made it.
          God made a big bang in the sky.
          God made trillions of planets but ours is the only one with intelligent life on it.

          Where do babies come from?
          WalMart!
          The stork!
          The cabbage patch!
          God makes them all!
          From mommies tummy!

          Here’s your diploma, well done!

          Scary part is it’s a reality for many.

      • #2443432

        Deuteronomy 22:28-29 :D

        by ansugisalas ·

        In reply to Oh, Ansu…

        28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels[a] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

        Footnotes:

        Deuteronomy 22:29 That is, about 1 1/4 pounds or about 575 grams (about 1000$ worth)

        http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+22%3A28-29&version=NIV

        • #2443430

          Bad Ansu! Bad Ansu!

          by aidemzo_adanac ·

          In reply to Deuteronomy 22:28-29 :D

          Religion in 2013! Unless you are suggesting the passage was as absurd as Morocco’s laws.

        • #2443423

          See above

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to Bad Ansu! Bad Ansu!

          with the “Right out of the old testament” and “nice to see the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree”.
          Here, [snarcasm] [/snarcasm], apply those :^0

    • #2443371

      Very good, Ansu, but

      by john.a.wills ·

      In reply to Morocco to change law allowing rapists to marry underage victims

      The reply arrow on TR isn’t working for me (either on Firefox or on Seamonkey; maybe I should try IE), so, alas, I am responding in the wrong place.

      Your quotation is suggestive, but I suspect that the Dt obligation is on the rapist, not on the victim. What seems to be the same law is in Ex 22:15-16, where it is quite clear that the obligation is on the (male) seducer’s side. Translations differ as to whether we are talking about a seducer or a rapist, by the way, and I am not going to research the Hebrew text tonight.

      • #2443365

        You forget the patriarchal societies involved.

        by ansugisalas ·

        In reply to Very good, Ansu, but

        To them, it was the Father who presided over the sex life of their daughters. And that sex life was a bargaining chip to forge alliances.
        A non-virgin was “damaged goods”, so Deuteronomy 22 stipulates that if a person damages another’s goods, then they have to buy those goods.
        The woman had no place in all that, so it is in fact quite close to the Moroccan law.

        • #2443351

          One of my (many) annoyances with God and gods is why the hymen was created

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to You forget the patriarchal societies involved.

          It is one of the greatest aids to religious and cultural misogyny that you could possibly imagine and could have only have been invented by a particularly spiteful being.

          Evolution, which doesn’t care one jot, does, however, have a resonable explanation.

        • #2443313

          People and goats

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to One of my (many) annoyances with God and gods is why the hymen was created

          People are free to believe what they want. My primary goat (Tanngrisnir) is with religious apologists. They twist the whole world around to make their holy nonsense make sense.

        • #2902030

          Your religion is your politics

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to People and goats

          There’s no difference between bible thumping looney tunes and your flavor of looney tunes, except, of course, the choice of alters. But your head’s so far up your ass, you’d never see it.

        • #2427673

          I am rubber, you are glue

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to Your religion is your politics

          none of what you say fits me, but suits you like a glove.

        • #2902035

          That’s an easy one

          by aidemzo_adanac ·

          In reply to One of my (many) annoyances with God and gods is why the hymen was created

          To keep your ears warm, what else?

        • #2902029

          It actually is meant as protection . . .

          by av . ·

          In reply to One of my (many) annoyances with God and gods is why the hymen was created

          for the female anatomy as it develops. It’s men with repressed, perverted sexual desires that have perverted its anatomical intention. How dare these disgusting, ignorant men judge women in that way.

          To bad God didn’t make the hymen like a little guillotine to keep intruders out if the woman didn’t want to allow entry. Now THAT would be justice.

          AV

        • #2902028

          That is the best response (and slap down) . . . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to It actually is meant as protection . . .

          ….. in the history of the TR Water Cooler.

        • #2427765

          Disregard this message for now

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to It actually is meant as protection . . .

          It doesn’t seem to apply anymore. Perhaps it was yet another TR screw-up that caused things to appear differently than they should have. Unfortunately, all too typical the last couple of years.

          Edited to change my entire message (Grrrrrrr to TR. When will you get your act together and fix these irritating bugs?)

        • #2427750

          No, it isn’t

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to It actually is meant as protection . . .

          It does have some embryological significance linked to the formation of the female urinogenital system but no real purpose after the child is born. My point is that any half-decent god would have forseen what use men would make of it and arrange that it wasn’t a problem.

          Not sure how I’ve been slapped down.

        • #2427742

          I wasn’t talking about after children

          by av . ·

          In reply to No, it isn’t

          It would be broken by that point. I think God must’ve been surprised at how depraved some men can be. If he could do a do-over, he might take my suggestion into consideration.

          AV

        • #2427740

          Neither was I. “It would be broken by that point”. Indeed!

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to I wasn’t talking about after children

          Some time before, in fact. The hymen is mainly of embryonal significance.

          As for the “do-over”, I think an omnipotent, omniscient god might get it right the first time unless setting the ground rules for world-class misogyny is part of the job description.

        • #2427721

          Or

          by aidemzo_adanac ·

          In reply to I wasn’t talking about after children

          He should build men with both parts, it would be a quiet life full of happy men that wouldn’t fight as much and wouldn’t need to explain why they were at the bar. Then again, strip bars wouldn’t be the same.

        • #2427716

          a_a

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to I wasn’t talking about after children

          Re: [i]He should build men with both parts, [/i]

          That would certainly put new meaning to the insult, “Go f*** yourself!”

          Instead of a punch in the nose, the reply might be[i] “okay”[/i].

        • #2427712

          I just had an inspiration

          by av . ·

          In reply to I wasn’t talking about after children

          Maybe I can improve on God’s lack of foresight and invent the first insertable guillotine for women. I’ll call it the Rape Insert Protector or RIP for short! It would operate wirelessly at the touch of a button. If you have an unwanted intruder, just press the button and RIP! Problem solved.

          AV

        • #2427709

          AV: ~The main character in the movie ‘Teeth’

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to I wasn’t talking about after children

          and the Firvulag race of humanoids in the “Saga of the Exiles’ SF series by Julian May had similar dentition that probably fits your blueprint…

        • #2427708

          I never heard of Teeth, the movie

          by av . ·

          In reply to I wasn’t talking about after children

          Seriously, any movie that has a scene at an OB GYN is not one I really find entertaining. Now that I’ve looked the film up on the internet, hmm . . . not exactly an Oscar winner there. But still, I think there could be a market for my device. Especially in these violent times.

          It would work just like the teeth in movie though.

          AV

        • #2427706

          Good one Max

          by aidemzo_adanac ·

          In reply to I wasn’t talking about after children

          That even slipped my warped mind. If someone said that to me, in the past, I would reply with, “at least it’s long enough that I COULD” .

          I wonder how religious zealots would feel to find out that it’s just Adam and no Eve or perhaps it really was Adam and Steve after all!

          If I win the lottery I’m gonna buy boobs, I’m not far off from it now though (c’mon summer and exercise!). That way I could quit work, buy a cabin with fly in access only and keep myself occupied for years to come, in peace.

        • #2427705

          That’s the movie I was talking about!

          by aidemzo_adanac ·

          In reply to I wasn’t talking about after children

          Having watched 15-20 minutes of it myself, I didn’t realize anyone else saw it too. What a waste of time that show was.

          It would be the end of mankind though. Women feel they don’t need men, but they do just as men need women.
          Once a month, millions of men would be killed for no reason at all, except leaving a toilet seat up or not taking out the garbage, until nobody was left but a bunch of Lillith Fair hangabouts wondering why their friends didn’t have any children for them to play happy families with.

        • #2427699

          Women do need men, Aidemzo

          by av . ·

          In reply to I wasn’t talking about after children

          I look at it this way. If you just met a woman, wouldn’t you put that toilet seat down and take the garbage out? You would want to put your best foot forward, right?

          Just continue that behavior after you get married. Thats all women want. Its simple and then you don’t have the Lilith Fair ending. (as an aside, I own that album and absolutely hate it)

          Unfortunately, this is what we get. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aifppWWc444

          AV

        • #2427672

          AV, you can’t have your God and eat it too…

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to I wasn’t talking about after children

          Either it cannot be surprised, in which case it planned it that way, or it can be surprised, and then isn’t what God is usually made up to be.
          With emphasis on “made up”.

        • #2427645

          Unfortunately this is what we get

          by aidemzo_adanac ·

          In reply to I wasn’t talking about after children

          A stereotype. Unfortunately that’s how many women categorize people, into stereotypes. I have a friend who sees all men as stereotypical jerks, but most of the men she knows are really decent, caring people, she just VIEWS them as a stereotype because perhaps ONCE he left the seat up or ONCE he literally forgot garbage day. Instantly he becomes a ‘typical man”. Typical man being HER view of a stereotype.

          Archie Bunker and Al Bundy perpetuated the stereotype, as did their wives stereotype a passive, follower of a wife who would do anything for him, including stay in her place and not speak out (Edith) and a completely useless, lazy wife (Peggy).

          The thing is though, most people (man or woman) are not actually like that. There are some things people do where you’d think it reminds you of one of those stereotypes and all of a sudden, it applies to all.

          It’s funny how advertising media and TV sitcoms can change people’s views of the world and people within it. Unfortunately many people take it seriously though. How many women tried to mirror personalities from Sex in the City ? How many weak and pathetic men try to mirror wrestlers or MMA fighters?

          Fake people get married and can’t keep up the act. The truth comes out and they soon realize they didn’t marry a sit com star after all.

        • #2427722

          I saw that movie

          by aidemzo_adanac ·

          In reply to It actually is meant as protection . . .

          It was a horrible B film about a line of women with teeth in their……

        • #2427607

          I wonder why someone gave AV’s message a negative?

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to It actually is meant as protection . . .

          It used to have a +2. Now it has a +1. (I gave it a plus, by the way.) Perhaps that person will come out of hiding and explain himself. (I’m assuming a woman would not have given that message a negative.)

        • #2443305

          you seem to be missing the context

          by john.a.wills ·

          In reply to You forget the patriarchal societies involved.

          Read the passage of Dt leading up to the verses you quoted, and remember that Dt is a recasting of Ex, Nm and Lv. It is true that the ancient Israelite society was patriarchal (an improvement, by the way, on the matriarchal societies of the time, with their sacred prostituion and child sacrifice), and we should not expect an ancient culture to have the same mores as Greater-European early-21st-Century culture, but the rules in Dt are hardly the source of the Moroccan law as we have here read it described. That law is possibly bent out of the OT, but it is certainly not straight out of the OT.

        • #2443296

          The cult of Astartes does not a matriarchal society make.

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to you seem to be missing the context

          And the Molok cult was clearly patriarchal.

        • #2426369

          A matriarchal society did make the cult of Astarte

          by john.a.wills ·

          In reply to The cult of Astartes does not a matriarchal society make.

          and the Molokh practice (mlk is a verb, not a person: they molokhed their children to the deity or numen) arose in a syncretism of Sky-Father and Earth-Mother cults. Israel, unlike the nations, stuck with the Sky-Father image of God for the most part. Robert Graves: The White Goddess gives more information, although he does not say much about molokhing.

        • #2426349

          As thou asked me to source mine, so shall I ask thee to source thine.

          by ansugisalas ·

          In reply to A matriarchal society did make the cult of Astarte

          Don’t bother with Moloch, I know you’re wrong on that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moloch

          But Mesopotamia as matriarchal societies, that I’d like to see some sources on.

    • #2426279

      Sorry Ansu that I am out of line again…

      by john.a.wills ·

      In reply to Morocco to change law allowing rapists to marry underage victims

      but IE too is now having difficulty with Techrepublic’s Reply arrow. Now…
      1. The Israelites lived not in Mesopotamia but a good bit further west.
      2. I did give you a reference: Graves. You can also try Schmidt: Ursprung der Gottesidee and derivative works (such as Schmidt’s own Religion of Later Primitive Peoples). The Canaanites had a religious syncretism of Sky-Father and Earth-Mother cults, and what we consider the nastier parts of their religion were from the Earth-Mother side.
      3. You have given me another reason to mistrust Wikipedia. I am more and more wondering what I can trust it on, having been a fan for quite a while. I suggest you consult the dictionary of whichever Semitic language you know best for the root mlk.

      • #2426269

        All of these religions were from Mesopotamia, even the OT allows as much.

        by ansugisalas ·

        In reply to Sorry Ansu that I am out of line again…

        A cult being about a nominally female deity (remember, deities aren’t real) doesn’t affect whether it is matriarchal or not, and certainly not whether the surrounding society was matriarchal or not.

        The catholic encyclopedia also has Moloch as a deity : http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10443b.htm
        “mlk” is referred to as meaning “the King”, just as Yahweh is “the Lord” and Bha’al is “The Master”.

    • #2426117

      Ansu, your ignorance of Semitic grammar

      by john.a.wills ·

      In reply to Morocco to change law allowing rapists to marry underage victims

      is no more shameful than mine of Finno-Ugric grammar, but you should not pretend to know what you do not. The roots mlk, h{w|y}h and b’l are basically verbs meaning respectively reign, be and lord [over]. The nouns derive from the verbs, e.g. melekh for king and ba’al for lord. Take a look in Barron’s 201 Hebrew Verbs to get some idea of what Hebrew verbs get up to; if you do not know the alphabet, perhaps 201 Maltese Verbs exists and would help you. Another word for Lord is Adonai, which some pious people say when they see Yahweh, so as not to pronounce a very holy word, and Yahweh is therefore often translated by some word meaning lord, notably by Kyrios in the Septuagint, Now molokh presumably comes from mlk. It could indeed be an active participle, and is so translated in many editions, but it looks to me rather like an infinitive (as in English, the infinitive is often introduced with a word meaning “to”) in Lv 20:2 – 5 and, from the Oxford Dictionary of World Mythology:
      Moses said: ‘Thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech.’ It was formerly thought that Moloch, or Molech, could have been Melqart, the god worshipped in Tyre as well as Carthage, its colony. A Roman author records that in Carthage there was a bronze statue of a deity on the outstretched hands of which children were placed, so that they fell into the fire below. Because the Ras Shamra tablets do not mention child-sacrifice, the present view is that Molech was not a god but simply the term used for this primitive Canaanite rite.
      I suppose it does not do much harm to imagine that Molech was the name of one of the gods of the nations, though.

      On the matter of the distinction of false gods, Js 24: 14 – 15 clearly distinguishes the gods of Mesopotamia and those of the Amorites (who practised mlk-ing). It is true that they are identified as useless in later passages (e.g. 2K19: 17 – 18), but that is another matter.

      For the more general matter of the Earth-Mother and the Sky-Father I have already referred you to Graves and Schmidt.

      I am sorry not to have replied sooner: I seemed to have a stroke and, on getting out of hospital, caught a bad cold. And people have been calling me to all kinds of events, where, I hope not, I have been spreading germs.

      • #2426111

        I hope you have a speedy and complete recovery!

        by ansugisalas ·

        In reply to Ansu, your ignorance of Semitic grammar

        You know, Hebrew nouns are usually derived from verbs. When the mesopotamians said “Bha’al” they did not mean to refer to the verb root, it means “The Master”, even if it can be analyzed to be derived as “he who is.master”. Same with Moloch, it is “The King” even if it can be analyzed as “he who is.king”.

    • #2427718

      America to change law allowing rapists to roam campuses without risk

      by maxwell edison ·

      In reply to Morocco to change law allowing rapists to marry underage victims

      Not to worry, however; [i]they[/i] (and you do know who [i]”they”[/i] are, don’t you?) have given advice to women who are about to be raped:

      [i]What To Do If You Are Attacked: These tips are designed to help you protect yourself on campus, in town, at your home, or while you travel. These are preventative tips and are designed to instruct you in crime prevention tactics.

      1. Be realistic about your ability to protect yourself.

      2. Your instinct may be to scream, go ahead! It may startle your attacker and give you an opportunity to run away.

      3. Kick off your shoes if you have time and can’t run in them.

      4. Don’t take time to look back; just get away.

      5. If your life is in danger, passive resistance may be your best defense.

      6. Tell your attacker that you have a disease or are menstruating.

      7. Vomiting or urinating may also convince the attacker to leave you alone.

      8. Yelling, hitting or biting may give you a chance to escape, do it!

      9. Understand that some actions on your part might lead to more harm.

      10. Remember, every emergency situation is different. Only you can decide which action is most appropriate.”[/i]

      I hope all you women feel “safe” with that advice.

      Here’s the advice I’d give to my own wife or daughter:

      11. Call on your friends, Smith and Wesson, who are walking with you across the campus, to blow the guys balls off! End of story!

      But she can’t. It’s now illegal for her to do that. It’s now illegal for her to take measures to really protect herself.

      Fix the link if you’re interested in the source story:

      h t t p :// http://www.ibtimes.com/colorado- college-advises- vomiting-or- urinating-stop-rapists-after-lawmakers-pass-gun-control-bills

      • #2427714

        What the heck is passive resistance anyway?

        by av . ·

        In reply to America to change law allowing rapists to roam campuses without risk

        Just lay there?

        AV

      • #2427707

        One million dead by guns in the last fifteen years

        by neilb@uk ·

        In reply to America to change law allowing rapists to roam campuses without risk

        A price worth paying for liberty? You’re all mad.

        If all women walked around armed then I wiould predict that the number of totally innocent men killed in the US, just for being in the wrong place at the wrong time would reach proportions that even you would realise are pretty unsustainable. It would be nice if bad guys looked the part so you could distinguish them ahead of time to give you ample time to draw a firearm and put it to use in appropriate situations. But, they don’t. Damn good excuse for murder, too, given that most rapists are known to their victims. I would also predict that the number of women who manage to shoot themselves would be pretty dramatic, too.

        Again and again on this site and others, the attitude that comes over from Americans is fear. Fear of robbery, violence, rape and, of course, The War on Terror.

        Arm yourselves! The Apocalypse is coming!

        • #2427702

          Bang to rights Neil!

          by aidemzo_adanac ·

          In reply to One million dead by guns in the last fifteen years

          But on another note: If they didn’t shoot each other so often, there would be as many Americans as there is Asians on the planet. Scary to even consider!
          Culling the herd is not always a bad thing .

          As for fear of the world around you, you nailed it dead on!
          Fear of politicians, fear of public….it’s a loooong list

        • #2427697

          And I think you’re mad

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to One million dead by guns in the last fifteen years

          So what’s the solution?

          By the way, when on earth are you guys going to do something about all the [i]”violent crime”[/i] in the UK? For Pete’s sake, the [i]”violent crime”[/i] rate per 100,000 people in the UK is many, many times higher than the [i]”violent crime”[/i] rate in the US.

          Oh my gosh. What did I just do?

          I’m sorry. Please forgive me. You’re a whole ocean plus a half a continent away from me – AND you’re your own sovereign nation. It’s not really any of my business.

        • #2427679

          Violent crime

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to And I think you’re mad

          And yet we do not feel the need to arm ourselves with deadly weapons or even, on a routine basis, arm our police. We see your example in many things and follow it but not in this case.

          As for the statistics, I’m assuming you’re leaving intentional homicide off that list. Our rape statistics are almost identical. As for the rest, calling someone of different ethnicity a name may well be followed by a charge of “Racially aggravated assault”. Like-for-like statistics would be interesting.

          You did not address the very real climate of fear in your country which is even more interesting given how much more violent we appear than you.

          Oh, and as for the “none of my business”. This is a discussion forum.So, I discuss…push buttons…argue..sometimes agree, whether it is perceived to be “my business”, or not. You have the freedom not to read! Unless the PATRIOT Act has removed that right.

        • #2427676

          You not only sound like Al Gore (on one issue), but you sound like ….

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Violent crime

          ….. Piers Morgan on another.

          Regarding statistics:

          http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/5712573/UK-is-violent-crime-capital-of-Europe.html

          But that’s not the point at all, Piers ….. I mean Neil.

          I never specifically said that what you’re posting here is [i]”none of your business”[/i]; I said that me commenting on the UK was none of mine. (I chose my words carefully.) And it’s not.

        • #2427628

          Commenting on the UK

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to You not only sound like Al Gore (on one issue), but you sound like ….

          Do it all you lioke. Or not. No skin off my nose.

          However, if you do chose to comment, then a little knowledge of the background to what you are posting would be useful, Reading would be good but that’s something you’ve been slipping up on, lately.

          “Analysis of figures from the European Commission showed a 77 per cent increase in murders, robberies, assaults and sexual offences in the UK since Labour came to power”. OK, Labour aren’t in power and haven’t been for three years. The Telegraph is a Tory rag whose sole purpose is to discredit Labour. The article is typical Telegraph although, to give them credit, they didn’t go completely overboard and put in some comments from police chiefs at the bottom that I bet you never got to read.

          A Home Office spokesperson said: These figures are misleading. Levels of police recorded crime statistics from different countries are simply not comparable since they are affected by many factors, for example the recording of violent crime in other countries may not include behaviour that we would categorise as violent crime.

          Violent crime in England and Wales has fallen by almost a half since a peak in 1995 but we are not complacent and know there is still work to do.

          Whatever. WE don’t have one million dead by guns this century. WE don’t live in fear. WE don’t have a twentieth of your murder rate. WE don’t have more people in prison than China. Statistics? Keep ’em…

          And Piers Morgan, too. The man is an arse.

        • #2427625

          For some reason, I didn’t think you liked Piers

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Commenting on the UK

          To address some of your comments:

          I do not “live in fear”. Moreover, I don’t know anyone who “lives in fear”. You watch too much television. The news media are slanted – agenda journalism.

          Our prison population: I agree 100 percent. nuff said.

          On the “gun deaths”. We simply see the world through different glasses, Neil.

          Segue: Did you ever read Thomas Sowell’s book,[i] A Conflict of Visions[/i]? It should be required reading for every high school senior, if you ask me. Of course, that would not be in-line with the agenda-driven public education system.

          Nonetheless, you advocate getting rid of the gun that’s used for killing – [i]gun violence[/i] is the current buzz word. I’d prefer, however, to tackle the underlying problem – the root cause of the violence, regardless of the instrument used to perpetrate it.

          Moreover, I think it’s actually diverting attention away from the REAL root causes, and I think it’s intentional – I actually pretty much know it’s intentional (although that [i]”conflict of visions”[/i] thing also comes into play). They don’t want to address the root causes, because it would brightly shine the light on their previous failed policies.

          On the first two-thirds of your message? I neither agree nor disagree. Statistics are more often misused and abused than anything else. And each time you, or I, or anyone else cites them for whatever reason, we simply add fuel to the fires of misinformation. It’s why I usually shy away from using them.

          But please, Neil. Will you stop perpetrating the lies about America that you see on European television? Each time you repeat them, you perpetrate the lies and deceptions. You admitted yourself, the “real” America is nothing like you see in the news, in the blogs, etc.

        • #2427614

          Max, both the US attitude to guns and my perception of US phobic nature

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to Commenting on the UK

          has been gathered from this and other boards. There have been some jaw-dropping posts, jaw-dropping to me, anyway, on the gun control threads that highlighted the different attitudes and it is this that I am commenting on and not stuff from the newspapers.

          A bit of an aside on gun control. The “million dead by guns” includes a huge number of suicides who would, in other countries, have to find a less comfortable way to die and, because of that, don’t suicide at all. I suspect the NRA’s mantra of “more guns is good” and your suggestion of arming all women as a protection against rape would not lower the suicide figure one jot.

        • #2427569

          You know what, Neil?

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Commenting on the UK

          I’d much rather discuss all this over a steak dinner. I’m guessing it’d be a real hoot. How can we make it happen over the next couple of years? For a number of reasons, the window of opportunity might be closing, and that would be a damn shame.

          Do Brits know how to cook steaks as well as we do in the western USA? This is cattle country, you know (although Colorado pales in comparison to Wyoming, Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa …..) . Maybe I should consider a trip across the Atlantic before …….. well, you know.

          Or…….. I’d be open to New York (or New Jersey), just for argument’s sake. (But I’d have to leave my hat and truck at home!)

          P.S. Did you know that people in Rhode Island don’t know how to respond to a friendly, “howdy”? (I know from experience.)

        • #2427567

          Steaks

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to Commenting on the UK

          Like everywhere else, we have good and bad restaurants although I have to admit that my top five steaks have all been in the US – including a rather nice New York strip in Binion’s Ranch Steak House. That venue was recommended by an old friend.

          If you get across the Pond, Italy is the best place for a meal, I reckon, and Bologna is the best place in Italy if you have arteries that can take a cholesterol hit. It’s not cattle country, though. I’m spending a couple of days there this summer with the sole intention of discovering exactly what you can do with a pig… who likes cured pork products.

        • #2427554

          Binion’s Ranch Steak House

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Commenting on the UK

          Without a doubt, that’s on my top five list as well. But I haven’t been there in quite a while, probably 5 years. A great meal, and a great view of the Las Vegas strip.

          I drove the last time I was there. Stayed at the Golden Nugget across the street. That’s the best intersection in Las Vegas, if you ask me. Binion’s (formerly Binion’s Horseshoe), the Golden Nugget, Four Queens, and Sam Boyd’s Fremont.

          It’s 777 miles away from my house (well, close enough). And although I’ve never hit 777 on slots, because I don’t do slots, it sure is a dandy Blackjack hand!

      • #2427704

        Vomiting or urinating may also convince the attacker to leave you alone.

        by aidemzo_adanac ·

        In reply to America to change law allowing rapists to roam campuses without risk

        Then again, there’s a whole fetish world out there where people PAY for such pleasures.

        There was a rape attempt (well I guess just grabbing her is still considered rape really) in Vancouver last week. A couple of people caught on to what was happening and ran after the guy who fled and got away. The woman he had attacked scratched at his face, bit him and had him running before anyone else could help though.

        IF she had a gun, he’d be shot, probably not killed, and running free with a big lawsuit payout in his future while the woman faced time. Of course it’s not M1 and would most likely be manslaughter but still, not a smart defense at all.

        On top of the trauma she would face from the attack itself, she would now face endless nightmares about killing someone or at least harming him and spending 7-10 in jail.

        Has nothing to do with not being able to take measures to really protect herself, there’s mace, whistle, fighting back (as she did), screaming and all kinds of things that are actually very effective, unless in a dark park in the middle of the night, in which case she has put herself in harms way already, so much for self protection.

        Guns are just a pansy way out of situations you can’t handle. Most ‘humans’ would face more trauma for killing someone than they would from being attacked to begin with.

        • #2427696

          Re: Guns are just a pansy way out

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Vomiting or urinating may also convince the attacker to leave you alone.

          When will you stop pounding your chest in your lame attempts to prove to others how tough you are compared to how weak you see others? It sounds like nothing but teenage tough-guy talk.

          But please, tell us again how you would disarm a knife wielding intruder with nothing but your wit and bare hands. It’s been a long time since I’ve been at the edge of my seat hearing a Steven Seagal type story.

    • #2427556

      Posted in the wrong place (nt)

      by maxwell edison ·

      In reply to Morocco to change law allowing rapists to marry underage victims

      oops

Viewing 8 reply threads