Utopia Talk / Politics / 'Stealthing'

swordtail Anarchist Prime	Tue May 02 09:08:29 'Stealthing' could be considered assault say experts about secret removal of condom during sex Paper in Columbia Journal of Gender and Law examines little-known practice some say is 'rape-adjacent' By Malone Mullin, CBC News Posted: May 02, 2017 5:00 AM ET| Last Updated: May 02, 2017 8:20 AM ET Haley says she knows the trauma of sexual assault. The 20-year-old Edmonton woman says she has experienced multiple forms of it. But when she discloses the details of the latest instance, she says some people shrug it off. That's because Haley is referring to "stealthing," the secretive and non-consensual removal of a condom during otherwise consensual intercourse. (CBC has agreed to not publish Haley's full name as well as those of the other women who spoke about the practice.) Not everyone considers stealthing akin to rape, she says. Haley said she had consented to protected sex with a man she knew and trusted. But after a few minutes, she noticed something amiss. "I looked down at one point, and [the condom] just wasn't there," she said. "It was really scary." After confronting the man and speaking with friends who had the same experience with him, she says she realized he'd removed the condom intentionally. "With other people, he would find sneaky ways to take it off," Haley said. "[He would] stop having intercourse and chat for a second, then … start again and it wouldn't be on." The Columbia Journal of Gender and Law published a paper on the practice last week by Alexandra Brodsky, a fellow at the National Women's Law Center in Washington, D.C. Brodsky points to online communities where users brag about their stealthing conquests. One community published a "how to" guide, where users shared tips for removing or breaking a condom without their partner's knowledge. One poster suggested using oil-based lubricant to degrade the latex. Another said he pretends to adjust the condom so that it falls off on its own. "Usually, the condom comes off inside her, and I can … plausibly deny it," the user writes. "It's a super, super common thing," said Haley, noting that her friends have experienced it, too. Experts point to gaps in Canadian law Stealthing is not currently explicitly covered under Canadian law but could constitute crime based on a 2014 Supreme Court of Canada ruling. That decision, called R v. Hutchinson, upheld the sexual assault conviction of a man who poked holes in a condom without his partner's knowledge. He had been convicted of aggravated sexual assault and sentenced to 18 months in prison. The case set a precedent for situations in which a partner is put at risk of unwanted pregnancy by sabotaged birth control. But as Canadian law stands, it doesn't necessarily include victims who can't bear children. The Hutchinson case confirmed that "consent can be vitiated by deception, but only if that deception puts you at a serious risk of bodily harm," explained Janine Benedet, a law professor at the University of British Columbia. Men who engage in homosexual activity, for instance, might have a hard time convincing a court they've been exposed to that risk, Benedet says. A woman who has sex with a man and is at risk of pregnancy has a good chance of being covered under the Hutchinson precedent, Benedet said. "But the further away you get from that, the more challenging it's going to be to make out a claim that this was really a fraud," she said. If the defendant doesn't have a sexually transmitted infection, Benedet says, the bodily harm clause may not be triggered. "If you're not HIV-positive, if you don't have any [infection], hepatitis or anything like that, then I don't think you actually are — at least for now — committing a sexual assault by removing that condom." The way the law stands, "you do end up with a situation in which some kinds of stealthing may be criminal and others not," she said. "It does potentially create different standards for different classes of victims." For the law to cover all possible stealthing cases, Benedet said, it should consider not just the physical harm that may result from deception but also how that deception compromises the idea of consent. Incomplete information, like not knowing your partner has removed a condom, "makes a 'yes' not really a yes," she said. "I would like to see the courts do more work in thinking about what voluntary consent really means," Benedet said. "That's really the final frontier for us."​ Confusion for victims Dalya Israel works as a victims-services co-ordinator for the Vancouver-based organization Women Against Violence Against Women. She says people targeted by stealthers sometimes call the support centre's crisis line, trying to figure out what's happened to them. "They tell themselves, 'Well, maybe it wasn't that bad,'" said Israel. "We're socialized to not name violence. But we try to encourage them to name what's happened." Aysha, a 23-year-old woman from Edmonton, says it took her two years to do just that after her partner slipped off his condom one day without telling her. "I didn't know what to say or do and didn't really understand what was going on," she said. Aysha said It wasn't until much later, when she sought support from a friend, that she realized she'd been assaulted. Haley, too, says she didn't know what to think about her assault until she read about it online. "There are so many forms of sexual assault out there that haven't been validated," she said. "I find that people don't take this as seriously as other sexual assault cases. I encounter a lot of skepticism about it." 'Natural male right' As for why men would engage in such behaviour, the Brodsky paper looked at various online discussions of the practice and found that part of the motivation seems to be a feeling that it's a "natural male right" to spread one's seed. "One commenter on an article about stealthing wrote, 'It's a man's instinct to shoot his load into a woman's *****. He should never be denied that right,'" the paper said. "Another defender, commenting on a blog post detailing one man's 'strategy' for stealthing, explained: 'Oh I completely agree with this. To me you can't have one and not the other, if she wants the guy's **** then she also has to take the guy's load!!!' "A further contributor on the thread asked whether the sexual partners of 'stealthers' 'deserve to be impregnated.' 'Yes, they deserve it,' another replied." Brodsky found similar rhetoric even when pregnancy was not a factor — such as in cases of stealthing by men against other men. 'I didn't know how to react' The women quoted in Brodsky's paper describe being confused about non-consensual condom removal as it relates to other forms of assault. One described the activity as being "rape-adjacent." Selena, a 30-year-old woman in Toronto, says she felt that same confusion after she noticed her partner's condom was nowhere to be found — even though she'd watched him put it on before sex. "I didn't know how to react because I felt like I had been raped," Selena said. "But also [the intercourse] was consensual, with the exception of the condom bit." Selena said she didn't know her partner had taken off the condom until it was too late. When she confronted him, she said he seemed apologetic. "I felt betrayed. I was upset," she said. Selena said she took a morning-after pill and saw her doctor for STI tests. She believed her partner was remorseful and thought he'd never do it again. But then it happened a second time. "He unilaterally decided we were at a point in our relationship where we could be fluid-bonded," she said, referring to consensual, unprotected sex. "Without my consent. "He said that in his mind, if he was in a monogamous relationship, that he could expect that." As a result, Selena says it took her a long time to trust her current partner. Haley, too, says she was left with feelings of distrust. She stopped having sex after the last stealthing incident. "It was the last straw for me," she said. "It completely changed the way I look at sex." "It's not something I can enjoy right now. It's something I have to put aside and heal and recover from." http://www...ndoms-legal-concerns-1.4088491
hood Member	Tue May 02 09:24:21 The fuck is wrong with people
murder Member	Tue May 02 17:24:32 Everything.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed May 03 00:35:34 ...
earthpig GTFO HOer	Wed May 03 03:12:09 QUESTION. I've been told by females in the past that they can feel the difference. Have they all lied to me, or should my bullshit detector be activated?
Seb Member	Wed May 03 06:12:51 ep: People are often more able to sense something when they know it to be the case, and can often attribute something they feel to another cause if they are not expecting it. Generally, I wouldn't expect someone to surreptitiously remove a condom. Is it rape? Well it's certainly something isn't it! Consent given on the basis of contraception and a barrier to many common STDs is a different proposition. I think legally if it's anything it's probably rape, though that raises all sorts of complex situations of conditional consent (is it rape if someone sleeps with a prostitute and then doesn't pay?, what about if we agree to have sex as a penalty on a bet, both partners go through, but it turns out the winner didn't win but managed to trick the other into thinking they won) so clearly there is some kind of principle here on what constitutes a changed basis. This "stealthing" thing feels very rapey, the last example far less so. Legally, how one would prove rape by change of condition probably near impossible to prove too.
jergul large member	Wed May 03 06:28:21 Legally, you could argue anything from fraud to murder. Which is how I would think it should be approached. Surely there is legal history?
jergul large member	Wed May 03 06:29:21 (discounting the aids stuff we already know about).
Cthulhu Tentacle Rapist	Wed May 03 11:30:35 This would happen less if the female victims slaughtered their attackers
Seb Member	Wed May 03 11:54:29 jergul: Lets assume no further consequences like infection, because that's already known in case law that this would constitute a crime. Recklessly or knowingly infecting someone via sexual contact - which this would be as the perpetrator deliberately removed protection without the other parties knowledge, and which would be reckless even if the perpetrator did not know they had an STD - would definitely be some form of assault or, if it led to death, manslaughter or possibly murder. I can't recall if you can commit murder through recklessness alone.
Seb Member	Wed May 03 11:55:21 Or rather, lets say, irrespective of infection or death, could we also charge the perp with rape on top of assault and/or murder?
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed May 03 11:56:37 Or education. When you read some rapists testimonies you realize that a good chunk of them do not even think what they did was rape, they always point to some dark picture of chasing and raping someone in the woods. They can admit they have done wrong, but rape? Nooo nooooo, that is disgusting. I shit you not, this is a common excuse. Definitions matter and it is evident that there are wildly differing definitions person to person, culture to culture about what rape even is. I wouldn't say the OP is rape that would befuddle more than it helps. It should be illegal and classed as assault. So should getting pregnant against the father will though. That is slavery :D
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed May 03 11:57:19 ^for Cthulhu^
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed May 03 12:06:48 >>could we also charge the perp with rape on top of assault and/or murder?<< Well you can't charge him with murder unless there is death. And it seem a bit over the top. We are not even sure this is rape. Is it rape or assault? Fraud? It is definitely not murder, if he had some deadly STD and knew about it, that would be attempted manslaughter at best, or is there any lower degree of trying to kill someone? To get attempted murder you need intent. Most likely his intentions where less sinister than that.
Pillz Member	Wed May 03 12:24:36 If the intent is to commit a criminal act, attempted murder might apply since it's part of the commission of a crime? But for attempted murder, the perpetrator would need to have hiv/aids/hep c and not transmit it. I since transmittal would be manslaughter or murder. But why don't we enforce mandatory annual std tests and execute people with aids?
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed May 03 12:30:38 That seems mildly inappropriate considering that everyone who has ever gotten AIDS got it unwillingly from someone else. Besides, HIV/AIDS is no longer that bad, look at Magic Johnson, he has had AIDS since the 1980's!
Paramount Member	Wed May 03 12:36:24 He also got money. In third world countries you normaly don't live as long as Johnson.
CrownRoyal Member	Wed May 03 12:50:33 The fitting thing would be the guy who is stealthing getting syphilis from the girl
jergul large member	Wed May 03 13:04:39 Seb Spanning from fraud to murder. Reckless endangerment or similar would probably be applicable in most cases. Or intent to do bodily harm (how else to interprete an willful action that is likely to result in hospitalization?) Conditional consent is another path of course. All told, stealthing seems like a very dangerous thing to do once the legal system catches up (the code is in place. Only trials and convictions are missing).
Seb Member	Wed May 03 13:16:27 "Well you can't charge him with murder unless there is death." Obviously. I said "Irrespective of infection or death" "We are not even sure this is rape." *sigh*, hence "could we..." "Is it rape or assault?" I think courts have already ruled it assault if you infect someone in this way recklessly, even if the sex is consensual, but the other party did not know. Removing the condom would be reckless whether you knew you were infected or not, so *if* in this scenario the perp infected someone, it would be defacto assault, but not necessarily rape. The question is, does sneakily removing the condom mean consent is no longer present, transfering the act of sex into a second assault, sexual assault, aka rape. "It is definitely not murder, if he had some deadly STD and knew about it," Some definitions of murder include recklessness. He intended to remove the condom, which was reckless. The person would need to be infected and die. "To get attempted murder you need intent. Most likely his intentions where less sinister than that." Again, depends - as I said earlier - on whether murder has recklessness in it. jergul: Proof though, is hard. But yes, it would be a very dangerous and stupid and criminal thing to do, even if you got away with it.
Seb Member	Wed May 03 13:29:42 A quick google and I think this may be the case: If you know you have an STD, infect someone by stealthing, and if the stealthing was intended maliciously (i.e. to freak them out), they die, then that's murder as the death is forseeable, malice is present and the doctrine of transferred malice applies. If you don't know you have an STD, infect someone by stealthing, and they die, then that's manslaughter. Obviously these are some pretty weird scenarios.
Pillz Member	Wed May 03 13:50:06 "That seems mildly inappropriate considering that everyone who has ever gotten AIDS got it unwillingly from someone else. " It's an incurable disease that is 100% fatal and is transmittable through circumstances other than just sex. Your post makes the case for me: if no living individuals have HIV or AIDS, no one can unwillingly catch or transmit it. Keeping these people alive only furthers the epidemic. If AIDS weren't on the rise globally perhaps the present course of action could be kept.
hood Member	Wed May 03 14:40:47 I wouldn't call this rape unless the woman discovered and attempted to stop it. Definitely should be something that could be prosecuted. Assault seems reasonable.
jergul large member	Wed May 03 14:56:02 Seb Unwanted pregnancy is as serious as an std.
Seb Member	Wed May 03 15:37:57 Nim: "That seems mildly inappropriate considering that everyone who has ever gotten AIDS got it unwillingly from someone else." There are examples of people being convicted of assault for deliberately infecting something with AIDS (I think it was), and also for accidentally doing so when they knew they had AIDS and did not disclose it. In the latter case, the issue wasn't intent but recklessness/criminal negligence which in many jurisdictions is a sufficient for the mens rea. I.e. to not have due regard to a forseeable consequence. Which is why I'm fairly confident that removing a condom during sex would be reckless even if you *didn't know* you had an STD: a foreseeable consequence of removing protection is that you would increase the likely risk of transmission of an STD. Unless you had reason to positively think you were clean (say you had a blood panel done), I'm fairly certain a case could be made that removal of protection that had been put in place amounted to recklessness. Similar in a way to someone, as a prank, messing with a piece of safety equipment in the workplace leading to injury, eve if they had thought that in context the safety equipment wouldn't be necessary to ensure the safety of the individual. jergul: As I just typed the above, that exact thought did occur to me. It's probably assault of some form in that case too. Hood: Firstly, obviously a woman that was not aware and then became aware can decide to withdraw consent, and anyone proceeding in having sex with her after that would be committing rape. The question is, before she became aware, is that rape? I don't think this question can hinge on awareness or not. If the argument hinges on it being legal because she was not being aware of what was happening, then how can she have consented to something she wasn't aware was happening? Surely, in proving she wasn't aware you would prove defacto no consent existed in the first place? It would turn consent on it's head and say actually rape only occurs if there is an active refusal - which makes it open season on drunk, sleeping and unconscious people. Either the courts view the presence or absence of the condom as a key and material aspect of what has been consented to, or not. Lets be more visceral. A guy agrees to have sex with a woman. He's lying on the bed, and suddenly she rams a dildo up his arse. He yells "oh my god, no, I didn't agree to this", she immediately stops, and pulls it out. Is this some form of sexual assault? Or only if she had continued? Surely it hinges on what the person reasonably could have been thought to have consented to, and whether or not there is a material difference between that and what happened. Either it's consensual sex and the lack of agreed condom isn't considered to be a material change in what was consented to, or it is considered in which case it's rape.
hood Member	Wed May 03 16:22:17 "I don't think this question can hinge on awareness or not." I'm not suggesting it should. It should be assault, or some similar variant, whether she knew or not. But rape is pretty clear: one has to be unconsenting. Now if there was an understanding before hand that unprotected sex would be objectional, and then shit was removed? That's a lot more difficult to answer. This isn't "well she kissed me and touched my weiner, obviously she was ok with me making her asshole bleed!?" territory.
jergul large member	Wed May 03 18:31:13 Hood The default is that unprotected sex is objectional. Lets have sex and lets make a baby are two fundamentally different things. Nothing scares women more than the thought of an unwanted pregnacy. Its a worry as old as the understanding of conception.
Hood Member	Wed May 03 19:06:51 "The default is that unprotected sex is objectional." The fuck? Well over half the women I know, single or otherwise, are on the pill for various reasons. Preventing pregnancy, then, is not the reason to require a condom. You're fucking retarded, brah.
jergul large member	Wed May 03 20:00:29 Hood "Unprotected" means sex without any birth control. Including without the pill. As is clear by actually reading what I wrot. I accept your apology. Gracious of you.
jergul large member	Wed May 03 20:07:12 The argument is gender neutral incidentally. It is indifferent if a man is claiming to use a condom, but is not, or if a woman is claiming to be on the pill, but is not. The degree of harm varies, but the consent a man gave before intercourse would have been violated as equally as the case would be for a woman.
jergul large member	Wed May 03 20:07:41 potential harm*
Hood Member	Wed May 03 20:08:45 ""Unprotected" means sex without any birth control. Including without the pill." This is a discussion about removing condoms. Fuck off with you're stupid bullshit.
jergul large member	Wed May 03 20:53:34 Hood We are actually discussing the legal conscequences of a type of behavior. Condoms are gender specific, birth control in general is not. So we can consider condom-breaking from a universal standpoint. You are just arguing a mitigating circumstance incidentally. Removing a condom wilfully may in some circumstances not result in completely unprotected sex. Yay?
Hood Member	Wed May 03 21:01:23 No, tardface. You're the only person arguing about unprotected sex meaning anything beyond "without a condom" as "without a condom" is the only on-topic interpretation of unprotected sex. That was established with the very first post of the thread wherein douchebags are sneakily removing condoms for the thrill of not getting caught or some such nonsense. When it was pointed out that your retard interpretation of "unprotected sex" as "making babies" was not pertinent, your uncontrollable necessity to never be remotely wrong kicked in, starting the backslide into oblivion that is pointing out how fucking retarded you are. You may enjoy attempting to pick nits where they do not exist, trying to squirm out of the tiny little universe you've created where you're god-emperor of all. You're a retard. Deep down you know it. Enjoy your pointless bullshit.
jergul large member	Wed May 03 21:12:56 Hood Its fine that you do not understand the argument. I was not really writing it for you. There are legal problems with sexualized crimes and hate crimes for that matter. Most pertain to lack of universal application (Thing A is ok sometimes if done by person B, but not ok other times, or if done by person C). I favour desexualizing crimes. If something is fraudulent, then treat it as fraud. If it causes bodily harm, then treat it as a crime causing bodily harm. Et cetera. But that can only be done on a universal platform and be equal regardless of gender. Case in point: Attempting to inflict an unwanted pregnancy on anyone through fraudulent means is quite a serious crime.
Hood Member	Wed May 03 23:42:36 No, I understand your argument. Just as you understood the context of the thread and the context of my use of "unprotected sex." But please, keep on retarding all over the place.
Seb Member	Thu May 04 01:25:49 Hood: In that case your argument is that sex with a condom and without are essentially the same proposition unless you actively object and it is reasonable of the man to unilaterally remove the condom present initially without the womans consent. In which case, where do you draw the line in the other direction. What is a reasonable change in proposition, what is an unreasonable one. You appear to agree that a switch from an expectation of penetrating a vagina to an unexpected situation of having been penetrated by a dildo is not consensual. So why would the expectation of being penetrated by a penis wearing a condom Vs non condom not be a change in what was consented to? This is not a matter of comfort and sensation - presumably this is in the context of casual sex where you don't necessarily know your partners sexual health and history - protected Vs unprotected sex would have significant risk leading to worry, anxiety and the costs associated with getting a check up, even if the was no infection. So harm, in a legal sense, is being done.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu May 04 04:30:16 Well you have to consider how unlucky this guy is, in light of how many of these incidents that undoubtly never become an issue. There is good chance that you obtain "ok fine" as an after thought and we all live on our lives and that is that. Imagine all the people texting while driving, nothing happens most of the time, until someone kills a child while texting. That person is a monster and can expect little sympathy from anyone. Even if texting isn't illegal everywhere (it should be) we know it is a bad idea. Yet we keep doing it. If I know that I am not infected with something, then what is the issue? The thoughts will go, she wont mind, she can't tell, it is not a big deal. Until you run over a child that is. How much of not ending up in trouble or prison is bad luck? How many people are texting right now on their way to work escaping justice because the horrible consequences never take place. This guy is as unlucky as he is guilty of wrong doing.
smart dude Member	Thu May 04 05:05:50 What if the bitch lies about being on the pill. Is she raping the man? Seb will say no, of course.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu May 04 05:35:12 Fraud, not rape. It is fair that if you have a baby against my will, that I be free of financial responsibility. Her body, her choice and her responsibility. Revise those laws and you will see a massive drop in birth rates and number of single mothers.
Seb Member	Thu May 04 05:53:46 Him: "If I know that I am not infected with something, then what is the issue?" Imagine it's the other way around - you have casual sex and somehow the woman removes the condom. Now you are worrying whether or not she's clean. "I'm clean, she says, I know it, fuck your worry, fuck you now have to go to an STD clinic to check it out, fuck you that you wouldn't have had sex with me if you knew it was going to unprotected. Oh, and heh heh, I'm ovulating and you came". He's not unlucky - any more than e.g. the enron guys were unlucky because many other criminals got away with it. Smart Dude: Interesting question - the situation is very similar - but the consequences are narrowed down to pregnancy of the perpetrator and subsequent child support, which makes the comparison asymmetric. This is why I was talking about two lines of argument: conditional consent or transferred malice. If the issues is that the consent is definitively conditional and that condition was violated, then I think there would be a case that yes, this could be rape. The question is where you draw the line. "I will have sex with you if Arsenal wins the cup", the other person manages to convince them Arsenal won when it didn't, through an elaborate ruse. A night of passion ensures, but in the morning: the ruse is discovered. Is this then non-consensual sex? Clearly there have to be limits to what counts as a fundamentally changed proposition here. I would guess it must surely relate to harm/risk or malice - but I don't really know. It probably hasn't come up. The case of a man accidentally getting a woman pregnant is complicated because the "harm" is the child support. There's no physical risk to the body, which would probably put any kind of assault clauses out of scope: so while recklessness and criminal negligence or deceit might be arguable - could you really get it to add up to an assault or a sexual assault? Further child maintenance is about protecting the child, and the arguments around that are more about ensuring the child is brought up. The principles appear to be "always take protection, the risk is on you" - so it's not clear whether a court would consider that harm. But I think fraud would be a very solid argument. OTOH, if the situation was symetrical: somehow the woman removes the condom (or perhaps, punctures it prior to sex surreptitiously) the the situation becomes more symmetric: there is an infection risk - so you have recklessness, harm to the body etc. and if it's rape in one case, it must surely be rape in the other. Note, all of this is a question of extrapolating law here (none of us are Lawyers that I know, so all very ad-hoc armchair) - it's not a question of should. I do think that someone tricking someone else into getting pregnant should be some kind of criminal offence. It probably is some kind of criminal offence. It just may not be rape.
Seb Member	Thu May 04 05:57:59 Nim: "that I be free of financial responsibility" And what of the child and the taxpayer? Fraud certainly, but that probably wouldn't negate child benefit payments. Child maintenance is not for the benefit of the mother, it's for the benefit of the child - so while it may be terribly unfair it's not clear that a father should be able to easily dump responsibility on the taxpayer due to a lack of due diligence on his part. It's a different proposition here - there is no injury or fear of injury done to the victim by the perpetrator. And the ultimate result of sending the mother to prison is you end up with custody... suppose you could give it up for adoption.
Seb Member	Thu May 04 05:58:56 Nim: I doubt you will see a drop in single mothers. Men could wear condoms, they chose not to, even though they know there is a risk.
jergul large member	Thu May 04 06:08:41 Seb Or imagine your doctor is examining your prostate old-school. Would it matter to you if he did it bare-back (without surgical gloves?). The child-support question probably needs to be disconnected. Child-support is always awarded, but in the case of malice, the support is part of the damage the male suffered. His recourse would be a court ruling awarding him conspensation for damages.
jergul large member	Thu May 04 06:11:58 That actually seems a plausible outcome. Woman sentenced for a crime, loses custody, child is either in father's custody, or is put up for adoption (the pregnancy rendered void in a legal sense). The problem remains proving things. But in an age where we all carry personal surveillance equipment...
Seb Member	Thu May 04 06:35:14 Jergul: Surely awarding compensatory damages defeats the point of child maintenance in many cases - just leaves mother and child with less. Awarding full custody to father and putting child maintenance on mother seems also less than satisfactory. So - from state perspective - is putting child in care. Don't really see a good solution here but agree that the child maintenance needs to be disconnected. Can't be the basis for the crime.
jergul large member	Thu May 04 06:45:20 Seb No good outcome simply underlines how serious that type of fraud is. Awarding compensatory damages for any crime commited by any parent would leave the parent and child with less. What is the general solution?
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu May 04 07:05:16 >>Imagine it's the other way around - you have casual sex and somehow the woman removes the condom.<< Nothing would change about what I said if it is the other way around. I have no idea what your point is or if you understood what the point of that post was, my guess is no. If no one gets hurt, then more often than not no one cares to make a big deal about it. I saw this guy text while driving, no one got hurt, no police reports where made no one was killed. >>He's not unlucky - any more than e.g. the enron guys were unlucky because many other criminals got away with it.<< It is funny that you would bring up Enron, a case that has been studied by behavioral economicist. There were many mitigating circumstances to both Enron and the financial meltdown we had recently, "everyone was doing it", "no one was getting hurt" and any sense of responsibility eroded because you were often not even gambling with money, but with derivatives of derivatives of money. Like the tokens you buy at carnivals, you lose any sense of value. Something to be said about the prevailing norms, that makes you think certain things are permissible, because there are no consequences. Re definitions of rape and education. Everyone here has done ethically questionable and down right illegal things, most of us got away with it. Not because we are morally superior but because we were lucky and nothing bad happened and we didn't get caught. >>And what of the child and the taxpayer?<< Taxpayers shouldn't be responsible either. If it is the woman's right to choose (which I agree it is), if the entire decision is hers and hers alone. As in, she may kill the fetus for any reason, lifestyle choice, I am studying, I don't want children, selfish or health reasons, it is all her choice. Then it is only fair that I can opt out of social and financial responsibility if she wants to keep the child against my will. >>there is no injury or fear of injury done<< Not physical, but plenty of psychological fear and injury, financial damage etc. It is very simple, if she can kill it, which is far more absolute and definite, then I can step away. >>I doubt you will see a drop in single mothers. Men could wear condoms, they chose not to, even though they know there is a risk.<< Women can have abortions, but society has told her that she can be a strong and single mother, relying on government handouts and child support. Take a look at the black community in the USA for reference. Where women have children with drug dealers, who end up in prison, while in prison they can't pay child support. No one thinks this fact is important so the debt just gets bigger, with interest. When you come out of prison you are indebted, no prospects, so you go back to selling drugs again, end up in prison. Round and round the retard wheel goes crushing peoples lives. Yes, cut the flow of money, watch the single mother parenting phenomena diminish, restore dignity to people. Also stop the war on drugs, but that is off topic.
hood Member	Thu May 04 07:37:39 "This is not a matter of comfort and sensation - presumably this is in the context of casual sex where you don't necessarily know your partners sexual health and history - protected Vs unprotected sex would have significant risk leading to worry, anxiety and the costs associated with getting a check up, even if the was no infection. So harm, in a legal sense, is being done." I haven't argued against this position. I've only said with vs. without a condom just feels far less rapey than surprise butt sex or continuing after consent has been revoked. I'm not saying it shouldn't be punished, only that I feel that crimes in the vein of assault is more appropriate than something akin to rape.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu May 04 07:38:00 >>Men could wear condoms, they chose not to, even though they know there is a risk.<< Risk is not even a factor here, you can always abort with morning after pill or an abortion. We have not agreed to rearing a child, we agreed to having sex. This is not even debatable since the power relation is so lopsided. When the entire choice is 1 persons, then by definition that person also holds all the responsibility for the consequences of that choice.
Seb Member	Thu May 04 10:00:15 Nim: ""If I know that I am not infected with something, then what is the issue?"" By that I understood to mean: "If I remove the condom and have sex, and I know I am not infected and so could not infect my partner, then what's the problem" Well, I'm pointing out the fact that the stealther knows, or believes, that there is no risk is not something the recipient of this act can possibly trust. So, you have the consequent issues of anxiety, and intrusive medical examination - which is arguably harm. "Something to be said about the prevailing norms, that makes you think certain things are permissible, because there are no consequences." Ism't that actually an argument for the reverse of what I understand you to be arguing: the "harm" in the case of stealthing is also systemic where the individual is not infected? "Taxpayers shouldn't be responsible either." So ultimately the consequence falls on the Child that grows up in poverty? "Then it is only fair that I can opt out of social and financial responsibility if she wants to keep the child against my will." I think you misunderstand the idea of the choice. You are saying that the woman should be forced to undergo a painful, emotionally difficult, invasive medical procedure with a reasonable risk of future health issues (including putting at risk her future fertility) - and if she chooses *not* to do that, it's not the fathers problem? I don't really agree with that. Ultimately, if the father didn't want to get a woman pregnant, there is plenty of due diligence steps they can take - and it should not be on the taxpayer or the child to bare the consequences. I accept there may be some vanishingly small cases/circumstances where there is genuine unfairness, but I think in those the burden of proof has to be on the father and even then I do not see the reasonable response that is fair to all parties. "but plenty of psychological fear" I agree, but doesn't that undermine your point about when the stealther knows they are not infected with an STD? "financial damage etc." So, I am not sure a court would consider child maintenance financial damage, and even if we did, it couldn't be damage to the person of the victim which means no assault figures could apply, which was my point. So at best fraud. And if so, would it make sense to award compensatory dammages as it would frustrate the fundamental intent of child maintenance. "Yes, cut the flow of money, watch the single mother parenting phenomena diminish, restore dignity to people. Also stop the war on drugs, but that is off topic." So people have been claiming that, and implementing cuts in child benefit and other such things, for about 20 years in the UK - generally seeking to make it harder for single mothers to be financially viable. And yet it is not matched by a commensurate decrease. Further, the number of single mothers that end up single mothers when the fathers also don't wear condoms tends to make me thing that actually the issue isn't just feckless women, it's feckless men, and they too should bare the financial responsibility. Or do you not agree? "you can always abort with morning after pill or an abortion." And he can always wear a condom. Or have his tubes tied. Which is the more difficult, expensive, invasive and risky procedure? Wearing a condom or having an abortion. The fact the woman may choose not to undergo this procedure shouldn't abdicate the man of his responsibility. Particularly as there are chemical contraceptives on the verge of entering the market for men too. So I disagree the power relationship is lopsided. As a man, it is very, very easy to take steps to ensure you don't get a woman pregnant. Far far easier than a woman, as the pill can fail, particularly in combination with other mechanisms - and has long term health consequences, and the supposed ultimate backstop of morning after pill or abortion are also far worse than simply wearing a condom. Hell with the current food fad for activated carbon as a cool new health food (which is great at soaking up the hormones in the pill making it ineffective- something few are aware of) - if you are a man having sex with a woman trusting that she's taken the pill so all will be ok, you are a bit of a numpty. If, as a man, you managed to get someone accidentally pregnant - particularly outside a long term relationship - your a bit of an idiot in my view. It's so easy to avoid. Trying to argue that as a man you don't have the power to wear a fucking condom is silly. hood: "I feel that crimes in the vein of assault is more appropriate than something akin to rape." I see. But if it is assault, then I don't see how it cannot be sexual assault because it's assault via sexual contact which meets the figure of rape / sexual assault. I think this comes down to the common idea of rape bound up with the idea of a rapist as an aggressive, brute physical force - but that't not often how it's defined in law.
hood Member	Thu May 04 10:11:25 Seb, do you just routinely ignore most of what someone says? (That's a rhetorical question; we know that the answer is yes) While rape is legally defined as sexual assault in most law sets, one can quite easily introduce varying levels of sexual assault, much like we have varying degrees of murder, theft, etc. Since we're mostly speaking colloquially, about punishment but not necessarily specific laws, I've simply been referring to "rape" or "assault" without giving time to legal definitions. You want misdemeanor sexual assault, sexual assault in the first degree, second, third, etc., violent sexual assault, all the way down? Sure. I'm all for that. We can put stealthing down as a minor to moderate sexual assault charge. If there's STDs involved, we can simply invoke current law used for such things. Rape in it's various forms can me moderate to major sexual assault.
Seb Member	Thu May 04 15:30:23 hood: I didn't ignore it. I acknowledged it. "I see". Do you need me to repeat what you said to show I understood it and had no issue with that part? Are you arguing what is, vs what should. I'm looking at what is. While you could create such a tiered system, it doesn't exist at the moment - frankly it simply isn't going to happen for a number of reasons, not least the fact that somebody is going to need to stand up an sponsor a criminal law reform bill that "reduces the penalty for rapists" (good luck with that), and in any case I'm not sure it is a particularly good idea. There is always a broad range of behaviour in crimes, and I think we should avoid creating lots of sub-categories in statute because it creates a messy, confusing and overlapping criminal code which tends to obscure both law enforcement and understanding of the law. I certainly wouldn't want to send the message that "stealthing" was more tolerable than other crimes. It's not. Crimes are not tolerable. It's for the same reason I oppose statutory tariffs: weighing the punishment to fit the crime in the context of actual events, that is the role of the judge. The less we constrain that role with statutory interference from politicians, the better. The legislature should set a range and guidelines. Further, I disagree that stealthing is a minor crime. If I had protected casual sex with a woman and discovered she'd secretly punctured the condom exposing me to the risk of contracting STDs, I would regard that as a serious fucking violation frankly and not at all minor. I'd much rather someone punch me in the face, which is a assault and would carry a custodial sentence; but involves far less stress and disruption to my life.
Hood Member	Thu May 04 16:35:13 "I certainly wouldn't want to send the message that "stealthing" was more tolerable than other crimes. It's not. Crimes are not tolerable." What? A tiered and varied penalty system says exactly this message. We tolerate petty theft more than we tolerate grand theft auto, or murder by giving out a pittance of punishment comparatively. Speeding and jaywalking are far more tolerable than fraud. Touching someone's butt is more tolerable than forcibly penetrating them with a hammer. Stealthing is far more tolerable than murder. Sorry, that's just how it is.
Seb Member	Fri May 05 04:57:13 Other similar crimes. Theres a difference between setting a difference between theft, robbery, rape; and creating a suite of classifications in rape. The crime is having sex with someone who does not want to have sex with you. It's a serious issue. It's not about *how* the perpetrator managed to overcome your objections. People who beat their victims into submission normally get multiple charges due to the other crimes committed to achieve their rape. The overall impression I get is that you don't really understand why people think rape is bad, and instead are focusing on whether it involves battery or not.
chuck Member	Fri May 05 07:53:20 "Brodsky points to online communities where users brag about their stealthing conquests. One community published a "how to" guide, where users shared tips for removing or breaking a condom without their partner's knowledge." So they shared tips about.................... ...................how to share tips ಠ_ಠ
hood Member	Fri May 05 08:40:21 "The overall impression I get is that you don't really understand why people think rape is bad, and instead are focusing on whether it involves battery or not." It's also well documented that you generally have no fucking idea what other people are saying. I'm done with you as long as you keep with your bullshit attempts to wiggle into the position of moral superiority by simply ignoring what people have said. To be fair, I knew this was eventually coming. It's my own fault for entertaining you in a discussion at all.
Seb Member	Fri May 05 09:19:23 Hood: Do I sound like I'm bothered, Hood? Like I said, it's my impression. I can't at all understand where you are coming from with this sudden desire for hypothetical criminal reform creating gradiations of rape. It's the non consensual aspect, rather than how vigorous the assault, that makes rape horrific, so what's the supposed degree that separates a hypothetical degree of rape? (note without consent, any sexual contact is an assault).
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri May 05 09:21:36 >>which is arguably harm.<< For sure, we agree, this conduct should be illegal. The point here is to not make a monster out this guy and attribute sinister motives. Hence why I am trying provide some nuance. >>in the case of stealthing is also systemic where the individual is not infected?<< Many contributing circumstances where someone who does this, is your average normal guy who is not a rapist. Just like everyone who get into a physical alteration with their wife/gf is not wife beater. These words are loaded with emotion and cultural context and used frivolously to describe things that they are not. >>So ultimately the consequence falls on the Child that grows up in poverty?<< In this case the responsibility falls on the woman, does she want to raise this child alone and without the support of the father, financial or otherwise? I would advise against it, but it is her body and ultimately her choice. >>And yet it is not matched by a commensurate decrease.<< Fair enough, I wont bother to challenge this and make it simple. Regardless of utility, I should not be forced into a legally binding agreement. If she can kill it, I can walk away. >>So I disagree the power relationship is lopsided.<< Well you can disagree, but reality is that in our part of the world, the decision is the mothers and hers alone. As a man you have shit to say. This is the definition of a one sided deal. >>Which is the more difficult, expensive, invasive and risky procedure? Wearing a condom or having an abortion.<< And giving birth is risk free you mean? Come on seb, you are grasping for straws. And you are removing all responsibility from the woman. Condoms can break as well and it is equally the woman's responsibility to protect herself. This is straying outside of the "stealthing" discussion however. >>You are saying that the woman should be forced to undergo a painful, emotionally difficult, invasive medical procedure with a reasonable risk of future health issues (including putting at risk her future fertility) - and if she chooses *not* to do that, it's not the fathers problem?<< I am already feeling distressed over your inability to understand what I am saying, though I have repeated it several time. I am not saying the woman should do anything. Her body, her choice. I am saying you should not be be able to force anyone else to suffer the consequences of your choice. Having sex with someone protected or not is not consent to having my baby. >>So, I am not sure a court would consider child maintenance financial damage<< It is extortion when you as the man, never agreed to having the child and may risk prison for not paying. >>your a bit of an idiot in my view.<< Then I would say you lack empathy and understanding. idiot have rights and should not extorted into slavery because of a choice someone is taking over their head. >>Trying to argue that as a man you don't have the power to wear a fucking condom is silly.<< I agree anyone who says this is silly. Who is making this argument btw? Never mind, it is all coming back to me, your love for strawmen. Having sex is not consent to making a baby. Every sex act is not for the purpose of making babies. I can wear a condom and it can break. You can have sex having agreed that you do not want a baby. Woman gets pregnant and changes her mind, how many times do you think this happens? It happened to me when I was 25, but my then gfs good senses came back to her after a harrowing couple of weeks. I dodge a bullet on that one, we did not live happily ever after, she moved 1000 km away had 4 babies with 2 other men and recently left her husband. No I don't think it would have been fair that my life be ruined and my child taken 1000 km away to be sent to me on weekends because someone had a change of heart and decided for me. You underestimate what a shitty father an unwilling man can make, understandable. If a woman can be "cold hearted" and "kill" the fetus, the man should be allowed to be equally selfish with regards to rearing and financing. Just don't confuse what I am saying as a blueprint for how I would act in the same situation, because I can sense it is brewing in there.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri May 05 09:26:42 seb I will assume, that you think a woman has the right to abort a sex act mid-stroke for whatever reason and walk away? As any sane person would. Giving consent to sex is not indefinite consent for having sex, let alone to having my child.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri May 05 09:32:52 "It's also well documented that you generally have no fucking idea what other people are saying." +1
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri May 05 09:38:59 >>It's the non consensual aspect, rather than how vigorous the assault, that makes rape horrific<< This is just wrong, we grade crimes based on motives and damages done and met out punishments and reparation accordingly. Even the old testament said "an eye for an eye", the punishment should fit the crime. This might come as a surprise, but crime victims, rarely give consent to being victimized, regardless of the crime that is imposed on them.
jergul large member	Fri May 05 12:51:02 More correctly; sexual acts are horrific unless qualified consent is given. Just consider it kidnapping* and assault that includes repeatedly rubbing or injecting bodyfluid into the victim. Spitting repeatedly into the victim's mouth would be the most innocent variant. No criminal code would give the crime less than a decade when framed in those terms. *(immobilzing a victim though physical or pscycological means is considered kidnapping in nordic law [frihetsberøvelse]).
jergul large member	Fri May 05 12:55:11 Torture fits in there somewhere too. Though I rather think the problem understanding these things is linked to ME culture. Hood and Nimi are otherwise likely candidates for "if that happened to my sister/wife/mother, I would castrate and kill the man". Rape is only a problem if it disrespects you somehow, eh?
hood Member	Fri May 05 14:03:15 The retarded "what are your saying? Fuck it, I'll just argue on what I want you to say and pretend like you said it," brigade is in full force.
Seb Member	Fri May 05 14:53:46 Nim: Who said he is a monster? Look, I think there is a problem here - we shouldn't be moving away form an objective definition of a crime to one that is instead about a subjective view of how the crime was committed. There are some people want to see "real rape" as committed by dangerous, scary strangers in dark allies at knife point in a frenzy of vigorous, violent assault - and anything else as lesser. But I don't think that's what makes the crime horrific (example we don't think of people who just attack women as monstrous as those who stick their dick in them). Objectively, if it's rape (and I grant that it's not entirely clear in my mind that this is rape, but it certainly feels to me that way and I think at least a couple of arguments could be made that it is) then it's rape, and I don't think it should be messed around with because rape brings different associations to some peoples mind, and those people also happen to think of a particular context about rape that turns out not to be the most common form. In practice, I am generally against legislators messing around with the criminal code in this way to send virtue signals: mandatory minimum sentences, or creating unnecessary tiers of degree. In my view, I want an independently appointed judge to look at the specific circumstances of a case in deciding sentencing. And I want it for precisely this reason: because actually I don't think you or I should be sitting here trying to decide if in general where "stealthing" sits in relationship to say, date rape or marital rape, vs the actually rather uncommon rape by a stranger in a dark alley. Victims may differ in their view, and further, aggregate views over time will change and often on timescales shorter than the long sentences you would expect for serious crimes. It's also inconsistent with the view that generally we don't set tarrifs by view of what the baying mob demands (e.g. we remove death penalty). The definition of sexual assault and rape is related purely to the non consensual sexual contact (which is, given the definition of violence and assault, violent and assault). Now, saying he's an average normal guy and not a rapist implies that rapists are in some way different from normal people other than the fact they committed rape. The sad fact is, in the way that all criminals are in some ways normal people, so are rapists. "If she can kill it, I can walk away." I disagree, if you could have worn a fucking condom, you can't walk away. You are acting like the man had no control as to whether the woman got pregnant in the first place. To get to the situation where the woman is pregnant and the man has no further decisions doesn't mean that his poor decisions previously can be written off. You say I am removing all responsibility from the woman, I disagree - the woman also has to raise the child doesn't she? You are arguing that as the woman can always choose to have an abortion, the man has zero responsibilities. I'm surprised you can't see that. But he chose to have sex with the woman, he chose not to wear a condom - and yes birth control can fail, and condoms can break. That's a risk that the pair take, as a pair. One shouldn't be able to walk away. "And giving birth is risk free you mean? " Compared to an abortion? Yea, it's much lower risk. "Having sex is not consent to making a baby." Sorry, as you accepted that birth control is a risk, and as you accept the woman has a right not to have an abortion (it's her body), then yeah, if you have sex with someone, a baby is at some level a risk. Consent to having sex, you consent to that risk - whether you intend it or not.
Seb Member	Fri May 05 14:54:31 I kinda feel like I've walked into the backstory for the Handmaids's tale. Which reminds me, I need to download the series. Seriously, watching Nim's gradual radicalisation is quite depressing.
obaminated Member	Fri May 05 15:04:34 Probably shouldn't have sex with people you don't know. Also, is it rape if you are told prior to sex to pull out but you figure why not baster her a bit with your happy juice instead?
jergul large member	Fri May 05 15:13:40 I stumbled over the book as early as 1986'sh. It made quite the impression. Yah re nimi. Engineering is dangerous (some of those German gas chambers were quite the engineering feats). Weaponized autism. Hence the Masters degree. A little education is a dangerous thing. Particularly for vulnerable groups.
Seb Member	Sat May 06 03:51:58 Oh don't be ridiculous, Nim's not autistic, and the radicalisation of people into alt-right type patterns of thought is far broader than those.
jergul large member	Sat May 06 08:46:45 Seb Oh Geeze. On what planet does "weaponized autism" (I ripped the term of reddit I think) translate to what you suggest? "a little education" + cultural and economic alienation equals radicalization. Roll a die to see if the outcome is alt-right, or religious batshit.
Seb Member	Sat May 06 10:19:10 I think weaponised autism means something else.
jergul large member	Sat May 06 10:36:13 Context is king.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sat May 06 10:39:38 Who said he was the monster, then proceeds to call me a nazi. I just assume you think he is a monster seb, because that is the kind of person you are. Things can only escalate to a worse and more violent state between people like you and me.
Seb Member	Sat May 06 11:28:56 Nim: "I just assume you think he is a monster seb, because that is the kind of person you are" He says, despite evidence to the contrary, while moaning that I point out that his beliefs increasingly overlap with the alt-rights as actually evidenced by his actual statements. Followed by a prediction of violence as he is unable to contemplate coexisting in a society that has tolerance for differing views and systems to allow compromise. Like I said, watching your gradual radicalisation is very depressing.
jergul large member	Sat May 06 11:30:41 "Things can only escalate to a worse and more violent state between people like you and me." Wow. Alt-right Akbar.
Seb Member	Sat May 06 11:52:40 Perhaps he sees, like the Roman, seems to see "the River Tiber foaming with much blood"?
Forwyn Member	Sat May 06 11:56:15 Furthermore, I consider that Carthage must be destroyed.
obaminated Member	Sat May 06 12:54:18 The sad decline of the friendship between seb and Nim has reached its climax in the form of vicious enemies.
Forwyn Member	Sat May 06 12:56:45 Nim's change, as well as many other users here, and millions around the globe, can be labeled as reactionary to the slow descent into leftist madness of those like Seb, who note the change of their opposition but aren't aware of their own.
Hood Member	Sat May 06 16:10:23 "jergul large member Sat May 06 10:36:13 Context is king." This is the most ironic and amusing post here in quite some time.
Seb Member	Sat May 06 16:40:04 Forwyn: How, exactly, do you think I've changed? What, exactly, is this supposed leftist madness? The idea that we should take refugees? This terrible leftist fad created in the aftermath of wwII and supported in the West by both sides of the political spectrum (the current US framework being passed under Reagan as I recall) until very recently? Or is it just crazy leftist stuff like womens equality and thinking it's not the states place to dictate people's identity nor that people should be free to discriminate on that basis? These are actually very old ideas from the enlightenment.
Seb Member	Sat May 06 16:42:08 This supposed reaction is actually just the collapse in self confidence of the intellectual underpinnings of western liberal democracy and humanism. When people lose their nerve, they panic and retreat to exclusionary identity politics.
Pillz Member	Sat May 06 17:08:56 Accepting refugees has nothing to do with western democracy. It has to do with the ridiculous idea that's caught on that human life is intrinsically valuable and should be protected. That is wrong. You're also constantly turning the issue to refugees when the problem is immigration as a whole. Namely the acceptance of immigrants that are fundamentally incompatible with western democracy, and the failure of the political and business establishment to create a viable socio-economic system that corrects problems like low birth rate and a loss of work opportunity, as they're too busy exporting jobs and importing workers, leeches, and breeding sows. Meanwhile you advocate for voting rights for those shitskins while chastising the legal right of anyone to vote who doesn't share your ideals (I recall you were opposed to the elderly, unemployed and blue-collar voting in brexit)
Paramount Member	Sat May 06 17:27:38 "leftist madness" What a load of bullshit. I know plenty of people to the right who values western democratic values and humanism. You people have gone astray. -- "Accepting refugees has nothing to do with western democracy. It has to do with the ridiculous idea that's caught on that human life is intrinsically valuable and should be protected. That is wrong. " It is only wrong if you lack humanity and sympathy, and in that case you are probably a psycopath/sociopath.
Pillz Member	Sat May 06 17:32:50 False. You kill insects in your home? Consume produce? No reason to value human life over other life forms. They're all equally unimportant on a base level. Humans, being the most numerous, should accordingly be assigned the least value by virtue of their abundance. So I don't give a shit if 500 million die of famine in Africa this decade. It is preferable to 1 African finding its way into a western nation.
Paramount Member	Sat May 06 17:43:48 "Things can only escalate to a worse and more violent state between people like you and me." lol, is this signs of Nimatzo's violent Middle Eastern heritage that is starting to show now? In any case, it is very un-Swedish. If you want to remain in Sweden, Nimatzo, you must behave like a Swede. Read up on how the SD defines a Swede.
jergul large member	Sat May 06 17:58:14 "No reason to value human life over other life forms." The basis for morally opposing immigration falls on that statement. If there is no reason, then immigration does not matter.
Pillz Member	Sat May 06 18:03:31 I sincerely hope you're not removing the context of my statement to turn it on its head in support of refugees, Seb.
Pillz Member	Sat May 06 18:04:28 Jergul, rather. Although I would have believed that was Seb if I didn't check.
jergul large member	Sat May 06 18:06:35 "Seb" Well fuck you. Anyway and what? If there is not value to human life over other lifeforms, then migration issues are moot They come, they stay, they leave, they never left in the first place, we leave, we stay, we leave and return... Its all indifferent.
jergul large member	Sat May 06 18:07:12 Sorry about the FU. I just have never been so insulted in my entire life.
Paramount Member	Sat May 06 18:16:48 Insects are equal to humans? Okay. "No reason to value human life over other life forms." There are pet dogs and cats that I value far more than some individual human beings. But in general I value humans more than insects, because I am a human being myself, and I can relate more to a human than I can to an insect. The existance of insects are of course important, so I don't go around and kill insects. "Humans, being the most numerous" I have always thought that insects are more numerous.
Seb Member	Sat May 06 19:04:52 jergul: Oh the feeling is mutual.
Seb Member	Sat May 06 19:10:24 Pillz: "You're also constantly turning the issue to refugees when the problem is immigration as a whole." Immigration as a whole predominantly isn't from muslim countries which everyone is getting so upset about. In my country at least, Immigration is predominantly from eastern Europeans. "Namely the acceptance of immigrants that are fundamentally incompatible with western democracy," Says who? What evidence do you actually have of this? Your own beliefs are fundamentally incompatible with western democracy. "and the failure of the political and business establishment to create a viable socio-economic system that corrects problems like low birth rate" If low birth rate is a consequence of individual choice, and individual liberty is paramount, how is this a problem, other than some grandiose collectivist bullshit? and why is it that only losers and lunatics sublimate their own individuality into this kind of nonsense? (well it's pretty obvious really: the former seeks coattails to hang on, the latter seeks a platform to stand on). "and a loss of work opportunity, as they're too busy exporting jobs and importing workers, leeches, and breeding sows." So, are they leeches or stealing your jobs by out-competing you and taking your work? Can't really be both can it? Automation has stolen far, far more jobs than immigration has. Ironically, immigration is propping up the jobs market by growing the demand in the service sector.
State Department Member	Sat May 06 22:43:36 If my guess is right they'll have to decloak before they can fire.
jergul large member	Sun May 07 09:52:31 "Namely the acceptance of immigrants that are fundamentally incompatible with western democracy" Arguably all immigrants ever from non-western democracies are fundamentally incompatible with western democracy. A certain degree of immigration is desirable. I doubt even Norway has natural population growth anymore. And population growth is the most import driver behind Gdp growth. Interventionism has been an unmitigated disaster and is completely incompatible with western, humanist, democratic traditions. We learned that lesson the hard way in the 1600ds. End interventionism in all its forms Improve the movement of goods and services Ironically by carbon-capping international transport. Accept some degree of migration And enjoy the next millenium Or not. My money is on not.
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: