Saturday, December 10, 2011

You Are A False Rape Accusation Supporter If ...


For close to seven months now, there has been a blog post festering in the hairy armpit of the radfemosphere that takes the notion that "all men are rapists" and kicks it up to new levels of insanity. Anything and everything makes a man a rape supporter, whether it's being against abortion or being for abortion for "the wrong reasons", to having a type of woman he's attracted to (of course, women can have the same beliefs and behaviors and it doesn't matter because, unlike all men who are overflowing with privilege, all women are powerless, helpless, fragile little creatures who have no choices about or control over their own lives, etc.)

Naturally, this has been ripped to shreds numerous times. This Google search for the post's title shows the original post as the first result, followed by several thousand responses of people showing their well-founded disgust. And it's not over yet. For opponents of Radical Female Supremacy, that train wreck of a post is the gift that keeps on giving.

Most recently it inspired this post by Ginko of Genderratic, showing the absurdity of the original post if the genders were reversed. In the comments section there Adibat made a comment that inspired the post you are reading now, suggesting "it might be entertaining to make a 'A woman is a false-rape accuser if she…'” and giving some of the points to get such a list started. So I took Adibat's idea and added to it to create the following (I changed the title since I think both sexes should be held to the same standards, even if the men who fit this list really are helpless, pathetic little worms making useless attempts to please there mistresses):

You are a false-rape-accusation supporter if you… 

  1. Call men rapists even if there is not enough evidence to bring them to trial.
  2. Automatically believe anyone (or at least any woman) who claims to have been raped
  3. Support leaving the definition of legal rape as penetration (as if the enveloper can't be the rapist).
  4. Claim that women never lie about rape.
  5. Believe that rape accusers should be given anonymity but the accused should not.
  6. Believe that every detail about the past of a man accused of rape is relevant and should be broadcast to the world, but that gaping holes in the credibility of woman making the accusation (a history of lying, past attempts at blackmail, an agenda that the man stands in the way of, even a history of making false rape accusations) should be ignored. 
  7. Claim that women who accuse men of rape are never believed, while men accused of rape always are.
  8. Distrust someone acquitted of rape. 
  9. Applaud vigilante justice against rape suspects. 
  10. Believe that if a man and a woman drink and/or take drugs together, get equally intoxicated, have sex against both of their better judgements (but both appear willing to each other), and both wake up regretting it the next day she is a victim and he is a rapist.
  11. Claim that if a man serves as little as one glass of wine with dinner to a woman with whom he later has sex, he is "plying her with alcohol" and therefore a rapist.
  12. Call people "rape apologists" for disagreeing with or just asking for clarification about your position.
  13. Claim that paying for sex is the same as forcing the person being paid to have sex.
  14. Claim that persuading someone to have sex is the same as forcing that person to have sex.
  15. Claim that watching videos of men and women paid to have sex with each other is the same as raping the women.
  16. Claim that when men and women are paid to have sex on video the men are raping the women, even if the men and women are in the same circumstances and the men are paid less.
  17. Claim that looking at nude photographs of women is the same as rape.
  18. Claim that women who choose to have sex and/or pose nude for money are no different than those who are kidnapped and forced to have sex or pose nude.
  19. Claim that adult women who choose to have sex and/or pose nude for money are no different than children who are forced to have sex or pose nude.
  20. Claim that jokes about rape contribute to "rape culture."
  21. Believe that the mere mention of rape by mythological creatures in an imaginary video game in a comic strip contributes to "rape culture."
  22. Believe that rape culture exists.
  23. Believe that all heterosexual intercourse is rape (of a woman by a man).
  24. Say you don't believe that all heterosexual intercourse is rape but believe that "male pleasure is inextricably tied to victimizing, hurting, exploiting; that sexual fun and sexual passion in the privacy of the male imagination are inseparable from the brutality of male history."
  25. Claim that penis-in-vagina intercourse  is "problematic" for women, because it causes pregnancy, the worst condition any human has ever known, and because "it's not even sex anyway" because women never enjoy it.
  26. Call penis-in-vagina intercourse "PIV". (I wonder if that might be intended to call to mind something else).
  27. Claim that while "penis-in-vagina" is the worst thing that a woman could possibly experience, penis in a woman's anus or mouth, and possibly even in a woman's hand, are also horrible and might as well be called rape, too
  28. Say that a man showing interest in a woman - that may or may not be sexual - in an "enclosed space" (like a subway car or an elevator) is like threatening to rape her.
  29. Say that a man pointing out that a woman is not really "trapped" in an elevator if there is no one blocking her access to the buttons and the door, is proof that man is an out of touch misogynist.
  30. Think Schodinger's Rapist is anything other than someone who raped someone named "Schrodinger"
  31. Have ever falsely accused someone of rape.
  32. Find this post offensive.
I'm sure there are many more items that could go on this list. If anyone reading this can think of any, please add them in comments.

Friday, November 25, 2011

Authoritarian Assholes' latest excuse to Censor the Internet

Via ballgame of feminist critics: Stop SOPA! AKA PROTECT IP Act Breaks The Internet To summarize SOPA/The Protect IP Act are basically excuses to use intellectual property rights to intimidate and shut down anyone posting content on the internet that the powers-that-be don't like.

As the video on vimeo.com shows there are already laws in place to protect intellectual property. While these are imperfect, it is not as if the entertainment industry is in imminent danger of bankruptcy. There are issues in the digital age that still needed to be sorted out with regards to the rights of owners of intellectual property and the rights of purchasers of content to share that content with others. But, there is no hardship so great being imposed on the creators of intellectual property that the government and Hollywood lawyers need to monitor everyone's personal website to penalize anyone who might have made an offhand reference to a copyrighted work.

For anyone interested in fighting this there are, in addition to the link provided by vimeo - fightforthefuture.org/pipa, there are also the following links to petitions and form letters to congresspeople: http://act.demandprogress.org/sign/protectip_docs, https://wfc2.wiredforchange.com/o/9042/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=8173
I am sure all bloggers and blog contributors can understand the importance of this.

Monday, September 12, 2011

Another Attempt at Expanding Self-Defense Rights

My petition a couple of years ago to get reciprocity between states for gun rights did not succeed. But now there is a new proposal with a similar aim. A friend of mine recently sent an e-mail about House of Representatives Bill 822, which will do much to correct inconsistencies between states and within those that have little respect for the fair application of the right to self-defense. I would urge those interested to read more here http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=7044 and to write your elected representatives regarding this issue. Here is a copy of the main text of the letter I sent to my congressman and senators:
I am writing in support of HR 822, The National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011. The right of peaceful people to carry weapons to defend against society's violent predators is a basic human right. However, despite this right being upheld by the Supreme court, there are several states and municipalities that seem to find that respecting this right is too much of an inconvenience. They will allow the powerful and well connected to defend their own lives, but seem to think that the vast majority should blindly trust government officials to protect them. Perhaps if ordinary adults gave police, prosecutors, and their supervisors the power our parents had over us when we were infants, they would provide the same protection our parents did then. I am skeptical about this, though, and in any case do not see it as the best way to maintain a free society. As such, I support H.R. 822 which will compel states and cities that allow their elites to protect themselves from violence to allow the vast majority of their citizens to do the same.
I would also urge you to read (or re-read) the NRA's factsheet regarding this issue. In addition to the fundamental right to self-defense that I have already stated there are two points I find especially worthy of note:
• States with right-to-carry laws have lower violent crime rates.
and
• Crime declines in states with right-to-carry laws.
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=189&issue=003

Sunday, September 4, 2011

Oh, My Papa!

I don't like to talk too much about personal shit on this blog. Since the time I started this I have lost two aunts and one uncle, all of whom I was quite fond of, but whose deaths I could not find a way to announce in this blog without making things more awkward than they should be. Well, the same could probably be said about my father's death this past July, yet I feel that is too big a part of my life to ignore. So, while I do not wish to get into my personal relationship with him I will re-post the obituary which I posted on my Facebook Page: http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/pottsmerc/obituary.aspx?n=john-j-meade&pid=152392954#.Thztv2UOJXQ.facebook


Tuesday, February 22, 2011

Here Is What Federal Marshall Thugs Tried to Censor

Via James Babb's Facebook post

Thanks to George Donnelly, who discovered the Google cache reproduced here:


They're Here...
...and Here, and Here
by Jim Davidson
jim@vertoro.com

Bookmark and Share

Special to The Libertarian Enterprise

A three-judge panel, consisting of Diarmuid Fionntain O'Scannlain, N. Randy Smith, Circuit Judges, and Charles R. Wolle, Senior District Judge, voted in the case of U.S. v. Pineda-Moreno, No. 08-30385 that the DEA and other pigs are not expected to get a warrant to trespass on the private property of a driveway to attach a GPS device to someone's vehicle and then follow that person's movements.

You can read all their foolish ideas here (a .pdf file).

So, let's find them, shall we? These nice men want you to know all about where they live, so you can attach a GPS device to their vehicles and follow them around. Or, come visit them with torches and pitchforks, or candle light vigils, or the like, one presumes.

First we go here: wikipedia.org/wiki/Diarmuid_O%27Scannlain

And we find out that Diarmuid has chambers in Portland, Oregon.

So, that's a rare name, we visit Whitepages.com and find out sure enough there is a listing.

Diarmuid O Oscannlain
3919 SW Mount Adams Dr
Portland, OR 97239-1559
Household: Maura O Oscannlain, Caroline Mcdonough

So we stop by Google maps and find his home.

Satellite/aerial view shows that is a very nice house. Across the street, a car is parked on the street. Street view shows some lovely flowers out front, a nice two-story frame home. Gosh, a wood house. Someone who doesn't believe in your reasonable expectation of privacy lives in a wood house.

It isn't completely clear that there would be a driveway, or garage, for each of these houses. There is one just up the street, but I think that's for another house on the hill. Anyway, it would be irony indeed if this despicable judge were parking on the street.

Norman Randy Smith is 60. wikipedia.org/wiki/N._Randy_Smith

It says there that he maintains a residence in Pocatello, Idaho.

And here that residence is:

Norman R Smith
420 Pebble Ln
Pocatello, ID 83204-3860
(208) 233-0733
Age: 60-64

Household: Ladean E Smith, Randy Smith,

[Map]

Pebble Lane has some very nice homes on it, all with garages. And is that a golf course behind the houses? Wow. Very swanky real estate. It must be nice to be a federal judge and get to stifle individual liberty.

It bears mentioning that "Smith" is a fairly common name, and this is not the only Randy Smith in Pocatello. So phone him up before you stop by.

Wolle was a bit harder to find. Visiting wikipedia you might think he was in Iowa. But it turns out that the part to notice is the National Judicial College, which is in Reno, Nevada. He seems to be this fellow, living nearby in Gardnerville.

Charles R Wolle
1030 Lakeside Dr
Gardnerville, NV 89460-9728
Age: 65+
Household: Thomas D Wolle, Susan M Wolle, Kerstin W Wolle

[Map]

Available aerial photo shows it to be a new development, near a golf course. I guess the water rights are in, but the irrigation isn't complete. Say, you try growing a golf course in a desert. Heh. But, money galore, judging by the size of the house and the circular drive. Gee, I wonder if the son of a bitch parks in his driveway.

Anyway, there they are, the current crop of parasites in the government to assault your individual liberty. Their opinion was "rendered" back in January, but a larger panel of the 9th Circuit decided to affirm what they chose. I haven't bothered to look for all those people. Do I have to do everything for you?

Best wishes for more freedom when these parasites get jobs in the private sector. Or, anyway, stop infesting your life.

If a bunch of cross-dressers want to attack individual liberty, to hell with them. Because to hell with them. That's exactly as much eloquence as I can muster. I am not burning down their homes, I am not murdering them in their beds. And I am not advocating that any person ever do anything of the sort. But if it were to happen, who would mind? If they were individually and severally dying in a fire, I would not urinate on a single one of them to save their lives.


Like this? Why not pay the author!
Select amount then click "Donate Now"

Pay to Jim Davidson
jim@vertoro.com


Jim Davidson is an author, entrepreneur, and anti-war activist. His 1990 venture to offer a sweepstakes trip into space was destroyed by government action as was his free port and prospective space port in Somalia in 2001. His 2002-2007 venture in free market money and private stock exchange was destroyed by government action in 2007. He's going to Mars if he has to walk. His second book, Being Sovereign is now availble from Lulu and Amazon. His third book Sovereign Self-Defense will be released for Kindle soon. His fourth book Being Libertarian will be available for free download as a .pdf, being a compilation of all his essays and letters in "The Libertarian Enterprise" since 1995. Contact him at indomitus.net or indsovu.com He and his associates at Individual Sovereign University are planning a series of concerts and celebrations of freedom around the world. One of these events is 4-6 March 2011 in Kansas City, Missouri.

Friday, February 18, 2011

Muppet Welfare

WTF is this garbage? I love Muppets and I know that they can survive without being Welfare Queens. Look at the non-Sesame Street Muppets, (Fozzie Bear, The Swedish Chef, Miss Piggy, et. al. and INCLUDING one who is ALSO a Sesame Street Muppet - Kermit the Frog!); they've made it in the free market without having to go on the dole (at least until Jim Henson sold them to the ├╝ber-welfare parasite known as the Walt Disney Company).

And, as for the Sesame Street Muppets other than Kermit - they've had some considerable success in the private sector in the form of merchandising - does "Tickle-Me-Elmo" ring a bell? If Sesame Street had to make it on commercial TV, it could. Yes it might have to accept commercials for sugary cereals and fast food thus causing obesity, diabetes, and toothlessness, since any child who sees commercials for such products will demand to eat them every day for every meal until they wind up in diabetic comas, and their parents will be powerless to stop them. But most children will wind up discovering such things and be drawn in by their irresistible lure anyway. So the possibility of junk food being endorsed by Cookie Monster and Oscar the Grouch (who I believe eats garbage from the garbage can he lives in) shouldn't make that much of a difference. Or if it did, I'm sure the creators of Sesame Street could secure an arrangement that their program could only be sponsored by their own merchandise. But then they couldn't shill for having our tax dollars support programs like Masterpiece Theatre and operas. Fine programs, of course, but ones which are mostly watched by people with more money than God, and who are to cheap to shell out a few bucks for cable channels or DVDs that offer the same type of entertainment, and sometimes even the exact same shows.

Monday, August 30, 2010

Sign me up for DAMM, Part II

Predictably, this story is giving neo-prohibitionists and their self-righteous allies a chance to wring their hands about "underage drinking." Of course, what is left unsaid is that 17 year-olds rarely die from binge-drinking related accidents in countries where the legal drinking age is 18 or younger, and drinking of those below the legal age is acceptable when supervised by an adult. It is also unstated that hardly, if ever, does anyone, anywhere fall out of a 25th story window while high on marijuana.