Since the recent Aurora shooting, people and so-called “experts” have started speculating on the mental state of James Holmes. One the popular “theories” floating around the intertubes is that he was somehow mentally ill or becoming mentally ill. I saw a recent post on metafilter where one of these so-called “experts” tries to say that any essentially any version of “reality” that is different from the so-called normal version is somehow pathological. He also goes on talk about cross-cultural differences in perception and prognosis of mental illness, but seems to miss the bigger question. What is ‘sane’ or ‘insane’ and why? I believe that answering that question is far more important than rambling on how to detect and treat ‘psychosis’ and here is why-
If you look at the world around you or read enough history it is obvious that so-called “normal” human beings are, for the lack of a better word, delusional.
Let me explain my points with a few examples-
1. The majority of human beings believe in the existence of an anthropomorphic ‘god’ who just happen to be very interested in the daily lives and beliefs of human beings. But have you ever wondered why an entity who could create and destroy universes might care about the sexual or other “moral” choices of human beings. I mean.. do you care about the sexual behavior of termites or bother yourself with whether they might worship you or not? Do you measure your success by how many termites believe that you are the one true god? Are you concerned about the termites worshiping any other human as a false god? Do you consider the residents of one termite mound as the ‘chosen’ ones? and yet you are only human. So why is belief in any religion, traditional or secular, not considered a serious mental illness?
2. Consider the sordid history of “medical science” which until the last 60-70 odd years could not effectively treat even very common diseases and disease conditions such as various bacterial pneumonia and hypertension. Did the inability of physicians to effectively treat diseases stop them from coming up with various fanciful notions of the etiology of diseases and methods to treat them leading to the premature death of most patients? It is only in the last ~ 60 years that going to a doctor has finally become less dangerous than not going to one. But have you ever wondered- why did physicians keep on believing in theories and treatments that plainly killed many more patients that helped them?
3. Human beings, throughout history, have fought wars amongst themselves. In almost all wars and armed conflicts throughout human history, active participants stand out as the one group that consistently loses the most- even if they are on the so-called “winning” side. While these losses take myriad forms from death, disease, injury to PTSD, other personal losses and financial losses- active participants are always the biggest losers. But has that stopped people from fighting wars, joining the military or otherwise answering the ‘call of duty’. It is very odd that we celebrate people who will screw over their own lives and future happiness to enrich a few cynical moneybags or mollify the egos of a few sociopaths.. I mean leaders. Are those who fight wars on their own accord sane?
The insanity and self-destructiveness of so-called “normal” human beings and societies easily surpasses what the most “mentally ill” and “delusional” individual is capable of.
What do you think? Comments?
These links are NSFW.
CFNM POV BJs: July 25, 2012 – All girls in this series are partially clothed.
Sideview BJs: July 27, 2012 – Because POV shots can become repetitive.
Closed Eye BJs: July 27, 2012 – Concentrating on the task at hand.
After reading a few more news articles about Jason Holmes, I can say with a high degree of certainty that he was not any odder than your average guy. Here is why-
He used escorts! While some people on alt-right and ‘game’ sites have speculated that he was celibate or virginal, it appears that he used a different route to get pussy. Ok, so he probably did not fuck whores every night (too expensive) but it is not like he was a shut in either. His adultfriendfinder.com and match.com profile suggests that he was actively looking for women
Holmes was no stranger to sex web sites … and sources tell us he also frequented a message board where potential johns posted reviews for hookers in the Colorado area. We found the message board … and discovered several posts written under James’ supposed screen name … in which he details multiple sexual encounters with different prostitutes.
TMZ spoke to three of the women Holmes supposedly reviewed. Hooker #1 told us she meets with lots of men and couldn’t confirm she ever did business with James. Hooker #2 said Holmes “looked very familiar” but couldn’t say for certain if he was a client. But Hooker #3 was POSITIVE she had met up with Holmes … not once, but twice … as recently as August 2011.
He was smart enough to make himself look mentally ill. Think about it, why would any person send his plans out to a shrink working in a university? He knew that most people in those positions usually ignore mail from people they don’t know, if they collect it regularly at all. The guy had a very clear vision of what he was trying to achieve.
The man accused of killing a dozen people at a midnight screening of the ‘The Dark Knight Rises’ sent a journal detailing the rampage to a University of Colorado psychiatrist prior to the attack, only for it to go untouched in a campus mailroom, according to a Fox News report. The diary of 24-year-old James Holmes — “full of details about how he was going to kill people” — was discovered Monday by authorities investigating another package at the school’s Anschutz medical campus in Aurora, a law enforcement official told the network. The source also said that the package had been in the mailroom since July 12.
He planned the whole thing for months. I believe that his planning started before his less than stellar performance in his PhD program. The possibility that his loss of interest in academia preceded his planning is looking very likely. And we all know how well he was dressed and prepared for his theater shootout.
Holmes apparently had prepared the attack at the Aurora theater well in advance, receiving multiple deliveries by mail for four months to his home and school and buying thousands rounds of ammunition on the Internet, Oates said. “He had a high volume of deliveries,” Oates said. “We think this explains how he got his hands on the magazine, ammunition,” he said, as well as the rigged explosives in his apartment.
While many people and so-called “experts” are still pretending that he was mentally ill, the evidence strongly points towards very careful and systematic planning. Anybody who can concoct and systematically execute such a long and convoluted plan is not nuts. You might also remember that his last adultfinder profile had something along the lines of “will you visit me in prison”? Moreover, he carefully covered his intentions and planning from others around him.
I am curious to know if he frequented ‘game’ or manosphere type websites, blogs and bulletin boards- because i have a gut feeling that he did.
What do you think? Comments?
I am posting some of the better examples of the James Holmes Meme.
What do you think? Comments?
I am certainly not the first person to note that Hitler and Stalin shared some similarities- from their humble origin, extreme paranoia, rapid and somewhat unexpected rise to power, total domination of the government to the large genocides perpetrated under their rules. But there is one more similarity that is rarely, if ever, mentioned.
They did not use their power to accumulate and hoard wealth.
Leaders throughout human history have consistently looted their own countrymen. The post-looting behavior of leaders is also consistent and involves some combination of hoarding money, investing it outside their own country or using it to build extravagant palaces or venues for their recreation. Most totalitarianism leaders also use their power to bed tons of attractive women and helping their progeny inherit their wealth. This pattern is seen in groups as diverse as members of the Chinese Communist Party, Politicians in India, Arab Kings and Dictators, African Dictators and Warlords to old-money WASP and other influential families in the USA and UK.
Hitler and Stalin stand out as two of the very few leaders of note who did not use their power to enrich themselves. While they certainly lived very comfortable lives compared to their countrymen, it never approached the level of obscenity seen in otherwise comparable rulers. They also never used their position to get endless amounts of hot young pussy or try to install their children and relatives into positions of power.
What do you think? Comments?
Have a look at this trailer of a recent movie, that is relevant to Aurora shooting. Yes, it is somewhat of a repeat posting.
A couple of quotes from the movie-
Frank: My name is Frank. That’s not important. The important question is: who are you? America has become a cruel and vicious place. We reward the shallowest, the dumbest, the meanest and the loudest. We no longer have any common sense of decency. No sense of shame. There is no right and wrong. The worst qualities in people are looked up to and celebrated. Lying and spreading fear is fine as long as you make money doing it. We’ve become a nation of slogan-saying, bile-spewing hatemongers. We’ve lost our kindness. We’ve lost our soul. What have we become? We take the weakest in our society, we hold them up to be ridiculed, laughed at for our sport and entertainment. Laughed at to the point, where they would literally rather kill themselves than live with us anymore.
and this one.
Frank: I know it’s not normal to want to kill people but I am no longer normal.
What do you think? Comments?
I am sure that most of you must have heard about a 24 year old guy named James Eagan Holmes who decided to go all nihilistic on an opening night show of the new batman movie. Anyway, I found this story interesting because it fits into an emerging pattern of mass killings. The most odd yet consistent pattern of people in such killings is-
The killer, is almost always a young to middle-aged guy, who did not have any significant prior criminal record.
From the Wikipedia entry about Holmes from the 2012 Aurora shooting:
Holmes was raised in San Diego, California. He graduated from San Diego-based Westview High School in 2006 and obtained an undergraduate degree in neuroscience from University of California, Riverside in 2010. Holmes had difficulty finding a job after obtaining his masters. He then tried to obtain a PhD in neuroscience from the University of Colorado School of Medicine in Aurora but dropped out in June 2012. Acquaintances described Holmes as a generally pleasant person and as a “really smart” student who showed no signs of violence. He was also described as an introverted and shy person, and as strongly involved in his local church.
It seems that James was a nerdy and smart guy, raised in a middle to upper-middle class family, who seemed to do pretty well in school and university. His biggest run in with the law as an adult apparently involved a speeding ticket. Now there is some information to suggest that he was not doing too well in his PhD program, but hardly enough to explain what he did.
Holmes did very poorly on his comprehensive exams last semester, the instructor told the Post, and the school was considering placing him on academic probation, but was not considering expulsion.
and here is an interesting comment from that same article-
A student who lived across the hall from Holmes at Cal-Riverside, who asked not to be named, said Holmes completed the honors program and was a member of Phi Beta Kappa and Golden Key honor societies. “I always thought that he was a little strange. I could never put my finger on it, but something told me to not get to close to him, female instincts I guess,” the female student told NBC News. “I had tons of classes with him and lived across from him in the Honors dorms. He was a very smart guy though. He was a little bit of a weird guy, but we were honors students, so weird people were kind of common.”
and here is another interesting quote, if you can read between the lines.
A neighbor, Tom Mai, told reporters on the block that Holmes was a shy, well-mannered kid, clean-cut and responsible, who was very active in the church. The Associated Press reported that the family attended a Presbyterian church and threw a quiet Christmas party for neighbors. Holmes had trouble finding work after college, Mai said, and then went off to graduate school.
and yet another one-
A woman who said she knew him in high school told NBC News that Holmes was a good person, but oddly always rooted for the villains in superhero movies. “He was a nice guy. Who very much wanted to be liked and wanted,” the woman said. “He was a very, very smart guy. I honestly can not believe he could do this. I know, I know, everyone says that. But it is truly devastating to me. “He did not have many friends for someone who wanted to be liked,” she said. “He loved all the villains in superhero stuff, which I did point out as odd. Most people enjoy the hero!“
it seems that he remarkably inconspicuous.
Melvin Evans, who was a bouncer at a karaoke bar near Holmes’ apartment, said he recalled Holmes as a patron from checking IDs. He said Holmes would stroll into the Zephyr Lounge, sit quietly in a corner booth and have a Budweiser,but never joined in the singing. “He would just sit by himself. He wouldn’t talk to anybody,” Evans said. “He was really, really mellow, really calm. You wouldn’t even look twice at him, if you passed him on the street.”
and here is the kicker..
“He looked so calm when he did it,” an eyewitness told NBC affiliate KUSA. “It was like scary. He waited for both the bombs to explode before he did anything. Then, after both of them exploded, he began to shoot.”
In my opinion, James Holmes is a newer version of George Sodini. This version does however come with a few upgrades, such as body armour, much better planning, more guns and leaves behind many more body bags. It is interesting that both Holmes and Loughner did not kill themselves after killing multiple people.
What do you think? Comments?
As many of you know, I have negative compassion for CONservative whites… OK, older whites in general. You might also be aware that I am a very strong supporter of quality of life over quantity. Hence I am strongly in favor of euthanasia on demand- especially for terminal illnesses. Now, some of you might put 2 + 2 together and wonder if I would be happy to see older whites just kill themselves on a large-scale. Surprisingly the answer is no.
I would prefer the option of euthanasia be not available to older white people.
The ability to inflict pain, degradation and abuse requires the person to be alive. You cannot torture, abuse or degrade a corpse, because a dead person is just a piece of rotting meat as there is nobody inside the meat bag. Furthermore, we already have the best system of torture, degradation and abuse for the rapidly aging white demographic.
Profit-oriented healthcare for old people is the probably the most ingenious system of torture and abuse ever devised by mankind.
Let me be clear about one thing- I am NOT against treating ailments and diseases in older people. Far from it, I believe that doing so properly can considerably improve your productive and healthy lifespan. Nor am I suggesting that drugs which improve quality of life alone (such as Testosterone supplements and PDE5 Inhibitors) are vanity or foolishness.
However the healthcare systems in developed countries, especially in the USA, are not meant to improve the lifestyle or quality of life of a person. They are meant to create a new and loyal customer whose desperation and fears can be used and abused to maximize the income of doctors, nurses, hospital administrators, pharmacists, insurance companies, medical device manufacturers and pharmaceutical companies.
The system has little interest in increasing the symptom free and functional lifespan of people, especially those with chronic diseases. It is about keeping them alive to milk the most money out of their misery, pain and the fear of death. Hence we see that the system tends to spend an inordinate amount of time, money and resources to keep hopelessly ill and dying people around for a few more months. Ever notice the fake concern that physicians display for older cancer patients and how they try to push them towards ineffective to marginally effective therapies they themselves would never take? Would they display the even a fraction of that concern for those people if they were not dying from something they could not make money off?
You can make much more money of a slowly dying patient with no chance of even a partial recovery that you ever could from someone who is relatively healthy or highly functional but medicated- let alone someone who dies very quickly.
There is also a lot of money in prescribing treatments that barely work, performing surgical procedures of marginal efficacy, suggesting lifestyle changes that are counterproductive or just testing people to find something to treat. The mindset of those in, or involved with, the medical systems in many developed countries make traditional organized crime look naive and humane by comparison. When is the last time a wise guy (of any race) told you that he entered his profession to serve humanity and help those in need? How often do organized crime types pretend that their activities are in your best interests? Seriously?
Profit and money oriented healthcare for the old and dying does an incredibly good job at dehumanizing, torturing, abusing and extorting desperate people. The best part is that they do it with full social approval, a straight face and clear conscience. I say, why stop a system that is already doing such an amazing job at realizing my vision. Why do something by yourself when others are enthusiastically doing it for you?
Making the option of euthanasia readily available might cause many older white people to actually choose that over spending the last few months of their lives rotting away in a whir of fancy hospital beds surrounded by phony and nameless people who see them as tools for paying for a house remodeling, investment opportunity or fancy new car.
What do you think? Comments?
It has been common knowledge, for some time, that asymmetric warfare is extremely effective against much larger and better equipped armed forces. Events during the last 60 years have demonstrated on multiple occasions that even a very large, disciplined and well equipped armed force is no match for an opposing force a fraction of its size and technological capability, if the latter chooses to fight an asymmetric war.
There are many conventional explanation for this phenomena ranging from exponentially increasing costs for the bigger protagonist, mission creep which overshadow the original purpose of the military action to changing public perceptions about the military action in the home country of the bigger protagonist. While all of the above are correct, they miss the biggest and most obvious factor that contributes to the success of asymmetric warfare.
The universal human failing, also known as ‘ego’, has been behind more mistakes, missteps and misjudgements than any other human failing- even greed. So how does ego make asymmetric warfare far more effective that it would otherwise be.
It comes down to maintaining the illusion of control in your own mind.
Humans have a bizarre obsession with the need to believe they have control. I believe that this obsession stems from attempts by humans to suppress constant reminders of their own mortality, impermanence and the meaningless of life in general. But doing so comes at a very high price for the person as well as those around him or her. It also creates a major vulnerability that is unique to humans.
Animals, regardless of their levels of intelligence or self-awareness, will disengage from situations where the reward is outweighed by the cost or potential for harm. Humans will often continue doing stuff that is clearly not working, even when better options are readily available, just to be ‘right’. But ‘right’ to whom? and for what? Some of you might argue that group pressure and considerations might keep people from admitting that they were wrong. I believe that the opinions of others are a fairly minor component of the reasons for the human tendency to dig deeper.
Admitting that you were wrong to any significant extent destroys any shred of belief in your supposed omnipotence. This is especially the case for clever morons (physicians, scientists, military commanders, politicians, banksters) who will often defend their old positions to their last breath.
So how does that affect the conduct of warfare? If we examine warfare through the eyes of those who manage its conduct, it boils down to asserting dominance over somebody else that culminates in total victory- aka playing god for a short time. However that requires an unambiguous victory, like that achieved in WW2 against the Third Reich and Empire of Japan. However many modern-day conflicts do not produce such clean and obvious victories.
In the absence of such clean victories, military planners and schemers on the dominant side are left with a situation that simply cannot be spun as a victory. Asymmetric warfare is therefore best understood as the equivalent of a constant and unmistakable reminder that they are mere mortals. It is like a really bad song stuck in your head for all eternity or a PTSD flashback that just won’t go away.
The response of most clever people to this reminder of their impotency is also remarkably consistent. They just keep on escalating the conflict till they run out of resources, money, popular support and ultimately their own life. Some may try alternative approaches to the problem, but even those alternatives are constrained by what a ego-driven mind can conjure.
For them, it is about winning- not solving the problem.
And that is why the events of 9/11 mushroomed into an un-winnable and freakishly expensive (multi-trillion dollar) war on terror. Of course, it certainly helps that it has made a few people very rich at the expense of everybody else.
What do you think? Comments?
These links are NSFW.
Portrait Format BJs: July 16, 2012 – 10/12 have eye contact.
Landscape Format BJs: July 16, 2012 – 9/16 have eye contact.
Squatting Cuties: 14 July, 2012 – It is about the angle.
Plain Jane BJs: July 14, 2012 – A few eye contacts but lots of enthusiasm.
Have you ever wondered why Chinese, Indians and Italians are generally less honest than Germans, Swedes or even Russians? Some of you might think that this difference is somehow linked to latitude, amount of sunlight in winter or genes. I have a different theory based on an old observation-
The general level of honesty prevalent in any group of people is inversely proportional to the time their ancestors lived under a large, centralized and highly hierarchical state based on violent coercion.
The first “civilizations” (aka ponzi schemes) started in the lower (and warmer) latitudes. Therefore parts of the world such as the Middle-East, Mediterranean Coast, Mesoamerica, India, Egypt, China had towns, cities and large kingdoms a few thousand years before anything comparable arose in Northern and Western Europe. It is my belief that the development of “civilizations” based on intensive and static agriculture based under a centralized and hierarchical regime is the single biggest reason behind the widely varying level of dishonesty across different cultures.
Here is why-
Humans beings have lived as hunter-gatherers for most of their history as a species. For all its supposed faults, this particular life-style had some major advantages over those of people in ALL pre-industrial agricultural societies. Apart from a low incidence of malnutrition and endemic infectious diseases, these societies had a very shallow hierarchy and those at the top of that hierarchy were in the same boat as their followers. Coupled with the inability to accumulate and transmit wealth over generations, these groups were remarkably free of people who were dishonest to their followers. Even the introduction of transient and semi-permanent agriculture did not change this situation to a significant extent.
Then large-scale static agriculture happened.
While this mode of food production and social organization had many differences from its predecessors; I am going to concentrate on one of those differences- effect on settlement size. While previous groups of humans rarely exceeded a few thousands, static and intensive agriculture allowed that number to routinely reach into the tens or hundreds of thousands. The leaders of such large groups (first kingdoms) were increasingly able to isolate themselves from their followers and potentially exploit them in ways that were hitherto not possible. The need to administer and efficiently exploit such groups also necessitated the development of needlessly complex and ‘tall’ hierarchies with all sorts of sociopath-friendly laws and regulations.
So here is my question- What type of personality would gain power in a very hierarchical society with many laws and regulations?
The answer is obvious, but seldom discussed in “polite” society. Such socio-economic systems would select, concentrate and reward people with significant sociopathic tendencies. This unnatural concentration of sociopaths near the lever of power has two knock on effects.
1. To survive under such a regime people would adopt the behavior and attitudes of their “elites”. Therefore such societies would quickly become cesspits of backstabbing, treachery and generalized dishonesty.
2. If sociopaths are successful and sociopathy is partly inherited- it is possible that older civilizations might have a higher percentage of sociopaths just because more offspring of sociopaths survive and attain power.
Now you might wonder- Is it possible to reverse dishonesty in cultures? The answer is.. Yes with one caveat. The process of doing that is kinda messy and involves destroying all major institutions (and their members) in a given society which translates into about 10-20% of the population. Only a fairly deep social reset, be it through natural disasters, war, or internal collapse can reliably make a society less sociopathic.
What do you think? Comments?
Honesty, or the lack thereof, have historically been linked to everything from culture, religion, race, class, intelligence to morality. I have always interpreted such purported relationships as the products of biased minds steeped in sophistry and other assorted forms of bullshit. In any case, most people ignore a far more important and relevant question.
Is dishonesty always wrong?
I believe that dishonesty is best understood as a strategy. But towards what end? and under which conditions? In my opinion, dishonest behavior can be categorized into two types- based on the motivations driving the deceiver.
Retaliatory Dishonesty: This type of dishonesty is by far the most common type of dishonesty. The dishonest person is merely retaliating against a person, group or institution that has previously abused his trust. Whether it is the friend who betrayed you, the lover who cheated on you, the boss who screwed you, the company, bank or university that abused you or the country that lied to the person- the dishonest person id not throw the first stone. Therefore retaliatory dishonesty is about loss mitigation and payback, as there is no point in continuing to honor an agreement which the other party has willingly defaulted on. Indeed, not retaliating in the face of continued lying, fraud and abuse would be irrational.
But there is another type of dishonesty.
Preemptive Dishonesty: As it name suggests, preemptive dishonesty is a type of strategy where you start out with the intention of screwing over your counter-party regardless of their behavior towards you. Those who indulge in such behavior try to justify it based on prevailing social mores, attitudes, economic conditions, libertarianism, capitalism, communism or any other ideology. However an objective look at the circumstances surrounding such acts of dishonesty always reveal that the main motivators for such behavior are infact greed, sociopathy, narcissism and a focus on money that approach autistic obsession. As I will show in the rest of this post, preemptive dishonesty is far more disruptive to societies than simple retaliatory dishonesty.
My classification of dishonesty into the above mentioned two types came from an interesting observation I made in my childhood. Some people are enthusiastically and consistently dishonest even if not doing so would be far more profitable. Example- Many Indian businessmen insist on selling substandard products and services even if the providing high quality versions of them would increase their total and per-customer profits, in addition to increasing their share of the market. I should note that Chinese businessmen behavior towards their customers is an almost identical.
But why would they consistently act in this manner? are they arithmetically challenged? why would they not want more profit, a larger market share and more loyal customers? why go for a short-term pump and dump operation when the alternative is far superior? I believe that understanding preemptive dishonesty as a strategy is possible if you are willing to accept an unpleasant aspect of human behavior.
Most businessmen are driven by the need to steal from and hurt other people. It is about scamming, impoverishing and fucking over other people. Profit is the icing on the metaphorical cake.
Accepting the possibility that most businessmen are driven by motivations other than profit allows us to then explain a whole range of seemingly irrational behaviors of the ‘rich’- from hoarding money beyond the point of utility, socializing losses and privatizing profits, fostering inequality to the point where it threatens their own existence, running perfectly good businesses into the ground to extract more money. It also allows the rest of us to create behavioral lists to identify such individuals and take appropriate action against them and their offspring.
What do you think? Comments?
I have in numerous previous posts, such as this one, stated my belief that laws created and implemented in a highly hierarchical society ultimately lead to its ruin. I could illustrate my theories in action with many current examples, ranging from the negative effects of patent laws on innovation to the disastrous results of various laws that make student debt undischargable in bankruptcy. However I will concentrate on one aspect of this issue that we are all familiar with.
I assert that written contracts are ‘legalized’ fraud.
Many of you might counter my assertion by saying that business in a society where people don’t know each other well requires contracts. My counterargument is-
Have you ever read the contracts and end-user agreements which you have to sign for everything from credit-cards, utility services, medical insurance to using iTunes?
The legalists and sophists (cocksuckers) amongst you might then say that it is up to both parties to read a contract before signing it. But is that a reasonable expectation? What is the whole point behind reading a 10,000 word plus document written in legalese just to use iTunes or accept the basic conditions for a basic health insurance plan? Furthermore, can you realistically renegotiate such an agreement if you wanted to?
OK, let me explain the concept of ‘realistically’ and ‘reasonably expected’ for sophistic cocksuckers.
We all consider our homes to be private places, where we can choose to be alone. Going into a person’s home or stepping on their land without due process is considered a crime- trespassing. However, can you ‘realistically’ bar a bunch of girl-scouts selling cookies or a lost person looking for a particular address from ringing your door bell? Are you going to prosecute them for trespassing? Are you going to shoot any person on your property even if there is no evidence that the person meant or was capable of harm? What about shooting the new mailman or an unfamiliar UPS courier? Any thoughts about shooting kids who accidentally intrude on your sacred property?
Let us now look at an example that illustrates the concept of ‘reasonably expected’. Imagine a good-looking girl taking a vacation at some beach resort. During the course of that vacation she decides to tan in a very skimpy bikini or less. Now, her lack of clothes in that context is not an excuse for some guy assaulting her or persistently harassing her and that is a reasonable expectation. However let’s say that some guy came up to her in the evening at a local bar and told her that she looked very attractive when she was tanning. Should she consider that harassment or stalking, especially if that was an isolated once-only remark or one sentence in a short conversation? Technically, it could be seen as harassment or stalking and prosecuted as such, but is it ‘reasonably expected’ for women to press charges for a single remark from a non-aggressive guy she barely knows?
Getting back to the main issue-
Is it a reasonable or realistic for every user to read and understand every single word in a multitude of long contract, that is deliberately written to obscure its true implications.
Given that all contracts are supposed to establish ground rules and expectations for the behavior of all concerned parties, isn’t it fraudulent to deliberately impair the ability of one party to fully understand the nature of the contract? Isn’t it? Do we respect the contractual validity of something signed by a person under duress or under the effects of psychotropic drugs? What if the person is illiterate or a minor? If not, why not?
It comes down to the ability to understand the full implications of a contract.
A contract is realistically valid only if all parties to the contact can understand it. Moreover, corporations have hundreds to thousands of well-paid lawyers and lobbyists, while the individual citizen has essentially no independent legal counsel or the resources to utilize such assistance.
Therefore the majority of contracts between individual citizens and corporations are fundamentally no different from those between a minor, prisoner, drunk or demented individual and a clever conman.
While you certainly enforce such fraudulent contracts by force, every enforcement of a manifestly unfair contract reduces the amount of faith people have in the judicial system and society as large. It ultimately degenerates into an arms race of lawyers, laws and lobbyists which irreversibly destroys civil society and adversely affects participation and hence the size of the real economy.
What do you think? Comments?
These links are NSFW.
Full Frontals: July 11, 2012 – Pretty obvious..
Doggy Pose: July 11, 2012 – On their hands and knees
On Their Knees: July 11, 2012 – On their knees
Here are two video clips I found on YouTube. The first clip is an older animated depiction of the main beliefs of Mormonism..
and the second one is a xtranormal animation that addresses the main beliefs of Mormonism.
What do you think? Comments?