Big Head Press Forum

Online Comics => Escape From Terra => Topic started by: wdg3rd on May 02, 2012, 06:09:14 pm

Title: Former Free States
Post by: wdg3rd on May 02, 2012, 06:09:14 pm
Based on the history mentioned today (5/2/'12) in the EFT universe, neither Scott nor I get to die in bed.
Title: Re: Former Free States
Post by: myrkul999 on May 02, 2012, 07:48:09 pm
Based on the history mentioned today (5/2/'12) in the EFT universe, neither Scott nor I get to die in bed.


Just so. But at least we get to die free.
Title: Re: Former Free States
Post by: Andreas on May 03, 2012, 08:28:23 am
neither Scott nor I get to die in bed.
That's good if you're a viking. Not so good if you're an incurable lech. ;D
See? It all depends on perspective.
Title: Re: Former Free States
Post by: macsnafu on May 03, 2012, 09:12:29 am
Based on the history mentioned today (5/2/'12) in the EFT universe, neither Scott nor I get to die in bed.


Maybe people were shot in bed.  After all, if you're going to raid a home, the middle of the night's a great time to do it.
Title: Re: Former Free States
Post by: myrkul999 on May 03, 2012, 12:09:38 pm
Based on the history mentioned today (5/2/'12) in the EFT universe, neither Scott nor I get to die in bed.
Maybe people were shot in bed.  After all, if you're going to raid a home, the middle of the night's a great time to do it.

Well, there you go. I feel much better now.
Title: Re: Former Free States
Post by: Andreas on May 04, 2012, 02:07:55 am
I wonder if that would satisfy viking honor... well, maybe if one sleeps armed, and gets off at least a bit of a counter...

But knowing the state of US/NATO tactical versus strategic weapons readiness, I think a nice flurry of cruise missiles is more likely than actual door-to-door invasion.
Too costly. Maybe unless they've outsourced it all to China - they put the spend in expendable.
Title: Re: Former Free States
Post by: Bob G on May 10, 2012, 09:27:16 am
I wonder if that would satisfy viking honor... well, maybe if one sleeps armed, and gets off at least a bit of a counter...

What? You don't sleep armed?!?

Quote
But knowing the state of US/NATO tactical versus strategic weapons readiness, I think a nice flurry of cruise missiles is more likely than actual door-to-door invasion.
Too costly. Maybe unless they've outsourced it all to China - they put the spend in expendable.

Who said anything about invasion? In the last century, more civilians were killed by agents of their own government than by any invader.

And cruise missiles would be counterproductive; it's difficult to tax rubble and corpses. Holdouts are much more likely to be targeted by a 'surgical' strike from a UAV, if that makes you sleep any more soundly.
Title: Re: Former Free States
Post by: Andreas on May 13, 2012, 12:20:08 am
Yes, civilians get killed, but NO, they do not kill them by door-to-door home invasion.
If they want to make an example of a state that tries to non-violently secede; they will do it with air power, not in melee.
After all, the troops might balk at the job, while missile launch staff have less psychological problems from their part of the job. Not looking the victims in the eye helps.
Title: Re: Former Free States
Post by: Scott on May 14, 2012, 01:13:35 pm
You may not be aware that we have experienced increasing instances of police SWAT teams storming homes and murdering innocents after looking them in the eye. Police culture has degraded significantly in the past 25 years and especially in the past decade, as war veterans are getting hired onto police forces.
Furthermore, I mentioned "Sino/NATO forces" for a reason: foreign troops are much less likely to feel sympathy for their victims.

But I don't expect to die in Wyoming. That's Boston T's dream, not mine.
Title: Re: Former Free States
Post by: Andreas on May 15, 2012, 12:02:13 am
You may not be aware that we have experienced increasing instances of police SWAT teams storming homes and murdering innocents after looking them in the eye. Police culture has degraded significantly in the past 25 years and especially in the past decade, as war veterans are getting hired onto police forces.
Furthermore, I mentioned "Sino/NATO forces" for a reason: foreign troops are much less likely to feel sympathy for their victims.

But I don't expect to die in Wyoming. That's Boston T's dream, not mine.

Yeah, the Chinese are probably the only nation with enough people to spare that they can spend it on a house-to-house campaign... it would still be very costly.
From over here it's hard to track "actual" reality in the mess of supposed, proposed and imposed "reality" that makes up the news- and other feeds.
It seems like the US police culture has it's own age-old problems, and the US armed forces has theirs... if those two sicknesses get mixed to a large extent then you guys are so screwed.
Title: Re: Former Free States
Post by: Killydd on May 15, 2012, 11:27:00 am
Yes, we are screwed.  With the War on Terror and the War on Drugs, they are trying to convince us that military doctrines are the solution to Civil problems, which is flagrantly illegal.  And at least there is finally some fighting back:  some states have at least declared that "No, you cannot just declare someone an enemy combatant on our territory."
Title: Re: Former Free States
Post by: customdesigned on May 15, 2012, 11:41:30 am
Yes, we are screwed.  With the War on Terror and the War on Drugs, they are trying to convince us that military doctrines are the solution to Civil problems, which is flagrantly illegal.  And at least there is finally some fighting back:  some states have at least declared that "No, you cannot just declare someone an enemy combatant on our territory."
You forgot the War on Poverty and the War on Child Pornography.  I always figured "War on xxx" was just a euphemism for unconstitutional.

Apparently more people are figuring that out, because there is a new twist this election.  The leftists are using "war" to describe constitutional proposals.  For e.g. the "War on Women" (i.e. refusing to provide federal taxpayer funded contraceptives).
Title: Re: Former Free States
Post by: Killydd on May 16, 2012, 02:12:33 am
Because there is nothing that says "violently opposed to" than "at war with" is the real answer to the politics there.  Of course, at least admit that the accusations in the War on Women go a bit further than that:  http://pol.moveon.org/waronwomen/ although in at least some cases it seems the argument is simply that women happen to have larger numbers in the targeted groups.
Title: Re: Former Free States
Post by: customdesigned on May 16, 2012, 09:46:22 am
Because there is nothing that says "violently opposed to" than "at war with" is the real answer to the politics there.  Of course, at least admit that the accusations in the War on Women go a bit further than that:  http://pol.moveon.org/waronwomen/ although in at least some cases it seems the argument is simply that women happen to have larger numbers in the targeted groups.
Good link.  Apart from refusing to subsidize xxx with federal taxpayer dollars in most of the points, the top two points seem to be talking about opposition to the Violence Against Women Act.  VAWA was an attempt to address the problem of women not reporting violent crimes.  It provides, among other things, that an arrest *must* be made when a female accuses a male of violence, regardless of any corroborating evidence, or lack of it.  (This was to combat the problem where women would be threatened with worse violence if they squeal.)  Furthermore, the accused male is presumed guilty until proven innocent EVEN if the female later retracts her accusation.  (This was to combat the problem where women would initially report domestic violence, then realize on monday that her man needs to go to work to pay the bills.)

All of this is blatantly unconstitutional (although addressing a serious problem that needs addressing), but most interesting is the change in society.  Before VAWA, violence was most often committed by males.  A decade after VAWA, most violent [domestic] crime is now committed by females!  Apparently, the predominance of male violence was due to the fact that they could get away with it.  Now that the tables have turned, females don't seem to be the saints some of us imagined them to be.

Edit: *domestic* violence has switched from predominantly male to predominantly female
Title: Re: Former Free States
Post by: mellyrn on May 16, 2012, 12:58:35 pm
Quote
Now that the tables have turned, females don't seem to be the saints some of us imagined them to be.

Yeah, we're imagined to be either angels or whores.  Why's it so hard (even for women) to think of us as "people"?
Title: Re: Former Free States
Post by: sam on May 16, 2012, 04:24:32 pm
VAWA was an attempt to address the problem of women not reporting violent crimes.  It provides, among other things, that an arrest *must* be made when a female accuses a male of violence, regardless of any corroborating evidence, or lack of it.

And regardless of who initiated the violence.

Surely it would make a lot more sense to arrest a black whenever a white accuses him, regardless of any evidence or the lack of it, since the criminality level among blacks, even black women, is considerably higher than the criminality level among white males.

It would also make a lot more sense to arrest a non property owner whenever a white property owner accuses him, since the crime rate among non property owners is substantially higher than that among property owning whites.

So let us have automatic arrest for blacks in conflict with whites, and non property owners in conflict with property owners.

In general, the primary function of VAWA is to break up families, rendering children fatherless, so that the states family intervention industry can get at the husband's assets, and because fatherless children, when they grow up, vote left of children with fathers, vote for big daddy state.

Near as I can figure, the primary reason women don't report violent behavior by males is that they like it, or rather they like the relationship.  This, of course, is horribly non PC behavior by women, so the state wants to force the husband to leave the wife and children, even if the wife is none too keen on the idea.

Theoretically, politically correct women are not supposed to tolerate physical punishment by men or infidelity by men, but in fact, of course, they usually do, regardless of how liberated they theoretically are - indeed they tolerate it one hell of a lot better than they tolerate the weakness of a man who foolishly expects an equal relationship with a woman.  One should of course use an open hand and leave no marks.  A closed fist is grossly excessive, for women are fragile. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3FgMLROTqJ0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3FgMLROTqJ0)

VAWA is venemously hostile to men, but it is also quite hostile to women whose behavior falls seriously short of the political correctness that most women supposedly believe in and theoretically practice.  It not only treats men as criminals, but women as children - children of the state.  (I am all in favor of treating women as children of their actual parents, because actual parents, unlike the state, usually have the best interests of their actual children at heart.)

If everyone is free to choose whatever sexual lifestyle they like, even if it is hurtful and self destructive, the state is wonderfully tolerant so long as they are doing stuff like sex changing a pre teen heterosexual to a surgically constructed simalcrum of a homosexual of the opposite sex. If, however, women choose a lifestyle that corresponds pretty much to what was normal one hundred years ago, as they very frequently do, the state is not so tolerant, and decides it stands in place of parents, and proceeds to exercise some very nineteenth century parental authority over women.
Title: Re: Former Free States
Post by: customdesigned on May 16, 2012, 08:13:19 pm
Near as I can figure, the primary reason women don't report violent behavior by males is that they like it, or rather they like the relationship.  This, of course, is horribly non PC behavior by women, so the state wants to force the husband to leave the wife and children, even if the wife is none too keen on the idea.
Near as I can figure, women don't report violent behaviour by spouses because they feel trapped economically, with no alternative means of support - especially if they have children.  A much better (and constitutional) way to address that problem was safe houses for battered women (and their children), although that still doesn't punish the aggressor. 
Title: Re: Former Free States
Post by: customdesigned on May 16, 2012, 08:28:16 pm
Quote
Now that the tables have turned, females don't seem to be the saints some of us imagined them to be.

Yeah, we're imagined to be either angels or whores.  Why's it so hard (even for women) to think of us as "people"?
Literature that takes hormones out of the equation helps.  For instance, in "The Secret World of Arrietta", the guy is 5' and the girl is 5", so the relationship is necessarily platonic.  In Catherine Jinks "Evil Genius" series, the girl is a brilliant mathematician with cerebral palsy, which again keeps the relationship platonic (I think - they *could* get married in the 3rd book, which I haven't got to yet, but I doubt it).

Another factor is that that women have a certain alien quality to men (and vice versa).  My cat is cute, very comforting while purring, and affectionate.  However, when I look into those golden eyes with slits for pupils, see her toy with a terrified mouse before killing it, or note the depth of the incision her claws make on the tree root, I realize just how alien she really is.   And the cliche is true: despite the mutual attraction, men are from Mars and women are from Venus.
Title: Re: Former Free States
Post by: Killydd on May 16, 2012, 11:48:19 pm
Near as I can figure, the primary reason women don't report violent behavior by males is that they like it, or rather they like the relationship.  This, of course, is horribly non PC behavior by women, so the state wants to force the husband to leave the wife and children, even if the wife is none too keen on the idea.
Near as I can figure, women don't report violent behaviour by spouses because they feel trapped economically, with no alternative means of support - especially if they have children.  A much better (and constitutional) way to address that problem was safe houses for battered women (and their children), although that still doesn't punish the aggressor. 

Don't forget about also her feeling judged by anyone that knows about it, since there is still a portion of culture out there that does blame the victim.  Also, people have a great fear of the unknown, and leaving a person that you live with is a large step into the unknown.  Also, having lived with eachother, a great deal of blackmail material exists in any relationship that people don't want aired.

And of course, even the bits about birth control aren't just about whether insurance should cover it.  It's about whether a pharmacist can take a prescription, and refuse to fill it, refuse to transfer it, because that person has a religious conviction that another person should not be taking these drugs.  http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/05/15/kansas/
Title: Re: Former Free States
Post by: ex-Gooserider on May 17, 2012, 04:10:04 am
Actually I've seen studies that strongly suggest that domestic violence is MUTUAL - that in most couples where it's a problem, there is aggressive behaviour on both sides, both verbal and physical...  Biggest difference, largely attributed to differences in physical size / strength is that males tend to use fists and physical strength, where women tend to use weapons - the stereotypical cast iron frypan or rolling pin makes a decent "equalizer" :P

Long time since I lived in an apartment, but I had two times when I called the cops on neighbors having "domestic difficulties" - in both cases after I had heard noises that suggested the situation had gone from verbal abuse to physical (and in both noisy arguments were common)  In both cases, it was the WOMAN that got hauled off in cuffs by the cops.  In one case I later heard that she also trashed the inside of the cop car, and in the other the guy got hauled off in an ambulance to get his head wound seen to...

ex-Gooserider
Title: Re: Former Free States
Post by: mellyrn on May 17, 2012, 07:23:08 pm
"Man is willing to accept woman as an equal, as a man in skirts, as an angel, a devil, a babyface, an instrument, a bosom, a womb, a pair of legs, a servant, an encyclopedia, an ideal or an obscenity; the one thing he won't accept her as is a human being, a real human being of the feminine sex."  --- DH Lawrence
Title: Re: Former Free States
Post by: sam on May 17, 2012, 07:33:14 pm
Near as I can figure, women don't report violent behaviour by spouses because they feel trapped economically, with no alternative means of support

In a normal healthy marriage, the wife acts somewhat as if she was a child, and her husband was her father.  Women, like children, are apt to accept physical discipline if it is handed out in a calm controlled fashion for unacceptable misbehavior.  

Women need external discipline.

Show me a politically correct marriage, and I will show you a divorce.

Just as the politically correct, despite their supposed political correctness, spend a fortune to make sure their children will not go to school with blacks, spend a fortune to protect their children from the "diversity" that they are theoretically so much in favor of, their marriages are not politically correct either.
Title: Re: Former Free States
Post by: myrkul999 on May 17, 2012, 09:32:24 pm
Women need external discipline.

Sam, Kindly keep this sort of wackiness in the thread we've pretty much given over to it.
Title: Re: Former Free States
Post by: Andreas on May 18, 2012, 12:03:19 am
Sam is a broken record.
Title: Re: Former Free States
Post by: mellyrn on May 18, 2012, 08:58:33 am
I think sam may be unable to "chunk down" (http://www.empatec.com/archive/jun07.htm) much below the level of phylum; he may, figuratively, be unable to see the trees for the forest.  He may know vaguely that there are "deciduous" trees and "evergreen" trees, but the idea that there might be meaningful differences between "oak" and "aspen", much less "red oak" vs "pin oak", may seem to him like pointless hairsplitting.  Distinguishing between individual trees of a single species may be completely beyond him. 

He can probably make distinctions well enough within his own self-defined "kind", white men, and probably if he, say, studied cars for a hobby, he could tell a '64 Mustang from a '65 (and would think it significant).  But beyond that, the world is for him coloring-book flat & simple.  He not only can't perceive more texture, he doesn't want it.  A flat world gives the illusion of being manageable.  But how empty.
Title: Re: Former Free States
Post by: customdesigned on May 18, 2012, 01:02:02 pm
He [sam] can probably make distinctions well enough within his own self-defined "kind", white men, ...
Hey! I'm a male of pale skin tone persuasion.
Title: Re: Former Free States
Post by: mellyrn on May 18, 2012, 02:16:41 pm
Quote
Hey! I'm a male of pale skin tone persuasion.

Some of my best friends are pale males!  ;)

I didn't mean that as a jibe against either category ("male", "pale"), but only that those are the two categories sam seems to consider as most important in placing himself in the world.  He's familiar enough with that subset that he can make distinctions that he is either unable or unwilling to make, or admit, in other subsets ("female", "dark").  He sees lots of different, unique, individual pale males, but apparently, to him, all females are just clones of one Ur-female.
Title: Re: Former Free States
Post by: sam on May 19, 2012, 03:11:53 am
He sees lots of different, unique, individual pale males, but apparently, to him, all females are just clones of one Ur-female.

VAWA (Violence Against Women Act) treats all males as completely different from all females, with zero overlap, and defines men as sinful and lacking in self control, whereas all women are innocent victims.

Evidently nothing sexist about that, but, hey, horribly sexist to say that women tend to lack self control and usually need external discipline.

Let us have a Violence Against Whites act that says that in any conflict between a white and a black, the black is always in the wrong.  Since there is nothing sexist in the Violence Against Women Act, cannot be anything racist in the Violence Against Whites Act.

The major reason and purpose of the Violence Against Women Act is to stop women from choosing to hang out with guys who use force on them, which implies that women are apt to choose to hang out with guys who use force on them, but when I say that women are apt to choose to hang out with guys that use force on them, I am being horribly sexist.

It is OK to believe that women tend to hang out with men who use force on them if you believe that this is because men and women are different and men are patriarchal pigs, but it is entirely unacceptable to believe that women tend to hang out with men who use force on them if you believe that this is because men and women are different and women are attracted to men who can master them.
Title: Re: Former Free States
Post by: myrkul999 on May 19, 2012, 04:06:06 am
He sees lots of different, unique, individual pale males, but apparently, to him, all females are just clones of one Ur-female.

VAWA (Violence Against Women Act) treats all males as completely different from all females, with zero overlap, and defines men as sinful and lacking in self control, whereas all women are innocent victims.

Evidently nothing sexist about that, but, hey, horribly sexist to say that women tend to lack self control and usually need external discipline.

I didn't see anyone defending the VAWA act... simply noting the consequences of it's enactment. Your mindset is an example of how the act got passed in the first place. The idea that women somehow need more protection, because they are the "weaker" sex.
Title: Re: Former Free States
Post by: sam on May 19, 2012, 06:34:33 pm
VAWA (Violence Against Women Act) treats all males as completely different from all females, with zero overlap, and defines men as sinful and lacking in self control, whereas all women are innocent victims.

Evidently nothing sexist about that, but, hey, horribly sexist to say that women tend to lack self control and usually need external discipline.

I didn't see anyone defending the VAWA act.

I did not see anyone suggesting it was sexist, and I did see people rationalizing the inequalities that it imposes by arguing that men oppress women, that a voluntary association between a man and a women is apt to criminally unfair.

For example
Quote
Don't forget about also her feeling judged by anyone that knows about it, since there is still a portion of culture out there that does blame the victim.
Surely, if she is in voluntary association with the guy, she is not a victim, and does not need meddlesome do gooders rescuing her.

And:  
Quote
women don't report violent behaviour by spouses because they feel trapped economically, with no alternative means of support
If a guy is supporting a women, maybe she should do as she is told or get the hell out, and if she does not do as she is told, and does not want to get the hell out, she needs to be punished.
Title: Re: Former Free States
Post by: myrkul999 on May 19, 2012, 10:00:12 pm
Quote
women don't report violent behaviour by spouses because they feel trapped economically, with no alternative means of support
If a guy is supporting a woman, maybe she should do as she is told or get the hell out, and if she does not do as she is told, and does not want to get the hell out, she needs to be punished.

You know, this is probably the most sensible thing I've heard from you on the subject of women...which, admittedly, isn't saying a whole lot.

It also leads me to believe that you may actually be - partially - correct about the nature of women in our society. Unfortunately, it's your attitude that perpetuates that, making it a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy.

You (and others like you) are convinced that women are weak, pitiful creatures, that need your protection and guidance to prevent them from driving their car off a cliff while putting on their makeup, and so when you are left in charge of raising a woman, instead of making them strong, independent and capable, you turn them into the weak, pitiful creatures you envision them to be. The problem is not inherent in the female genetic code, but rather, in the way we are raising our children. Well, not "we". I intend to raise my daughters right.
Title: Re: Former Free States
Post by: sam on May 20, 2012, 01:16:40 am
You (and others like you) are convinced that women are weak, pitiful creatures, that need your protection and guidance to prevent them from driving their car off a cliff while putting on their makeup,

But VAWA assumes that women are weak pitiful creatures that need protection from people like me, and I don't see you ranting about how bad VAWA is.

It is perfectly OK to allege large differences between men and women provided these differences make men look bad, or justify treating men worse than women.  It is, however, totally unacceptable to allege large differences between men and women if these differences make women look bad, or justify treating a woman with less dignity than one would treat a man.

The outrage about the one, and the lack of outrage about the other, implies that those outraged feel that women are weak pitiful creatures who need protection, and indeed they are, but I think that dangerous thoughts are rather low on the list of things that they need protection from.  

2005 Crime victimization survey:

Table 12, Victimization rates for persons age 12 and over, by
gender and marital status of victims and type of crime

Female married:     Violence victimization rate 7.8%
Female divorced or separated Violence victimization rate 33.4%

Table 13: Victimization rates for persons age 12 and over, by
gender  head of household, relationship of victims to head
and type of crime.

Female heads of households living with others
violence victimization rate 20.6%

Wife of a male head of household
violence victimization rate of 6.7%.

Female heads of households living with others
simple assault victimization rate 14.1%

Wife of a male head of household
simple assault victimization rate of 4.2%.

Female heads of households living with others:
rape/attempted rape victimization rate 1.8%

Wife of a male head of household:
rape/attempted rape victimization rate of 0.1%

VAWA reaches into relationships and attempts to break up couples that are politically incorrect in their inequality, but on the face of it, seems unlikely that this make women safer.
Title: Re: Former Free States
Post by: myrkul999 on May 20, 2012, 01:35:54 am
You (and others like you) are convinced that women are weak, pitiful creatures, that need your protection and guidance to prevent them from driving their car off a cliff while putting on their makeup,

But VAWA assumes that women are weak pitiful creatures that need protection from people like me, and I don't see you ranting about how bad VAWA is.

Yes, it's bad. It's horribly sexist. Of course, so are you, and, well, you're here, and the morons who wrote VAWA aren't.
Title: Re: Former Free States
Post by: mellyrn on May 20, 2012, 07:04:46 am
Agreed, VAWA is horrible and sexist.  For that matter, the ONLY reason I even considered supporting the old ERA ("Equal Rights Amendment" for those too young or high or something to remember this 1970s proposal for a Constitutional amendment to say "no discrimination on the basis of sex") was for fear that voting it down would be ruled equivalent to saying sex-based discrimination was acceptable.    It was nice to be wrong about that.