Yes, I am THAT DoubleD.
No, I will not explain further.
Joined Aug 2023
@VooDooMedic Hold up... I accidentally cut this little tidbit when trying to swap out the long-form text, and I'm sure you'd not want to miss this:
In 1907, there was a major financial panic which had a great number of causes. (Just search for "Panic of 1907".) One response was put forward by Paul Warburg and Jacob Schiff articles and speeches advocating for a central bank which was supported by multiple other influential bankers.
@VooDooMedic
Then in 1913 under the recommendations of a Republican-led commission a fellow by the name of Woodrow Wilson signed a bill creating the Federal Reserve System to create a centralize bank to control the regional Federal Reserve banks.
@VooDooMedic
* The 1863 National Banking Act created the precursor to what would be the Fed, and implemented many practices such as a uniform national currency with bank notes, which were different from the paper money the treasury issued, backed by government debt rather than precious metals.
@VooDooMedic I'd like to mention that the United states had attempted several times to create central banks:
* Bank of North America: charter repealed in 1785 due to corruption.
* First Bank of the United States: Charter not renewed before the war of 1812.
* Second Bank of the United States: Charter expired in 1836 under Andrew Jackson's refusal to renew it.
@UncleIroh @YoMomz @ButtWorldsMan I'll agree with that. Young males being in the dark about the truth of the nature of the world and what upholds society and the order of their cosmos was at the least an intermediate goal towards the end goal of destruction of the civilization.
@TimeSpent If they love flowers, yes, but you could buy something from them if they have something you want.
@Stahesh @YoMomz @UncleIroh @ButtWorldsMan I hear you, and I understand that this is a value judgement, which is fine.
A "better safe than sorry" attitude will certainly stop perpetrators, and even if there is a question, you can easily see in many cases what is legitimate and what is not as you outlined above.
As long as you understand the ramifications of your choices, I am sanguine.
@YoMomz I agree. It they are taking provable actions to make someone into a victim, the victim must be protected, and they must be stopped.
@Stahesh @YoMomz @UncleIroh @ButtWorldsMan Those actions are red flags and the actors are guilty of those acts; they likely have the intention to do more terrible things; I agree.
In these cases, it is up to the fathers to protect themselves and their families, which I fully support. I don't support granting the government the power to decide if someone is guilty of having the wrong intentions.
@Stahesh @YoMomz Being redpilled is both painful and wonderful. The truth often has that quality.
@YoMomz @Stahesh I sympathize. I've known people who have experienced such things too.
@Stahesh @YoMomz @UncleIroh @ButtWorldsMan I understand your perspective in this.
The issue is that we have to "draw the line somewhere".
We could prosecute an individual based upon their perceived intention, and you'd probably rightly identify and prevent acts like molesting children, but where do you draw the line?
The state, the means of coercion and control via force then has the authority to criminalize people's intentions because they've been given the responsibility thereof.
@YoMomz @Stahesh @UncleIroh @ButtWorldsMan
Could it be considered a disease if someone was groomed and molested as a child in the same way that a predisposition to heart failure is a disease?
They might have a proclivity to the outcomes of the disease, but similar to how you don't have to get fat if you have a proclivity to heart failure, you don't have to molest children if you were molested.
From action and not intention or its proclivity is where the execution of judicial action comes.
@MrpoopyButhole Violence always works. The question is whether or not it will accomplish the goal you desired.
@UncleIroh @YoMomz @ButtWorldsMan
Normalizing pedophilia, anti-natalism (whether via abortion,
intentional degradation of the mother figure as an object of aspiration for young females, or lies about equality between the sexes), destruction of the father figure as the strong, central figure of the family (whether through emasculation of males physically, socially (such as in media), or spiritually via religious teachings of the same stripe)
All of these have the same effect: societal death.
@UncleIroh @YoMomz @ButtWorldsMan Indeed. Many efforts we see in western society have at their heart the explicit or implicit objective of the destruction of the family, which being the bedrock of all society, yields the destruction thereof.
@YoMomz @Stahesh @UncleIroh @ButtWorldsMan The whole question is one of guilt in intention or guilt in action:
To prevent continued victimization of children we want to prosecute those who are guilty action.
To prevent possible victimization of children we want to prosecute those who are guilty of intention.
We cannot now nor may ever be able to know people's intentions without evidence as displayed by attempts or completed acts.
@Kerosene What site uses monster themes to explain grammar?
Yes, I am THAT DoubleD.
No, I will not explain further.
Joined Aug 2023
