Saw this article this morning and while I applaud the writer for his honesty, the subject matter still infuriated me. The article is here; http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/a-chilling-realisation-of-how-close-i-might-have-come-to-rape-20101012-16hxg.html
The most important part is this point: "I was driving one afternoon when I heard a legal discussion on the radio about definitions of rape. It was mentioned that if a man took advantage of a woman who was too drunk to know what she was doing, then this would fall into the broader definition of rape. That is, if I'd gone on with things, I may have been liable to be charged."
That is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard, and in my opinion it is a terrible flaw in the legal system. In Campbell's (the writer) case, the girl while being totally wasted, was coming onto him. If they then had sex, it would've clearly been consenting, no matter how drunk she is... it's not like she was drunk and denying his advances... she's actually doing the advancing.
Dictionary.com defines rape as "the unlawful compelling of a woman through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse," or "any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person." The first definition is already rather sexist, as rape doesn't exclusively apply to women, so the second definition would be more correct. In Campbell's case, he wouldn't have been forcing anything upon her, so she can't say he raped her. He wouldn't even have the intention of raping her, as he would simply be receiving her advances.
Then what if he had been so drunk and out of it, and they ended up having sex... and he woke up the next day regretting what happened and felt that he had been taken advantage of? Society in general wouldn't recognise that, and just assume he was making an excuse... and all of this is because we males are painted as sexual predators, so it is always the guy's fault and the girls get a free pass.
In reality, the whole thing is the girl's fault. She was the one who decided to get drunk out of her head, and she should deal with the consequences of that. If someone drink drives and crashes into someone because of it, then it's the drink driver's fault... you wouldn't expect the other drivers on the road to be like "oh, that driver is drunk, we should get out of his way." In those cases, the drink driver is blamed as it was his/her fault for driving under influence and not arranging for other methods of transportation ahead of time. Why should it be any different for a girl who gets drunk and ends up sleeping with some random?
I always hear whinging about how girls want to be treated like equals, but when it comes to a lot of things... it seems really one-sided to me. This particular scenario is no exception. If you do something stupid, you are the only one to blame.
Showing posts with label news. Show all posts
Showing posts with label news. Show all posts
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
News Watch: Drug Addict Refused Second Liver Transplant
You can read the article here: http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/newshome/6850483/dying-drug-addict-refused-second-liver-transplant/
So the basic facts of the story are:
1. 24 year old, mother of 2 children (aged 5 and 4)
2. refused second liver transplant
3. was a drug addict, which resulted in her neededing the first liver transplant
4. continued to use drugs after the first liver transplant
Now there are some conflicting issues here. Firstly, since she has been refused the transplant (well, to be put on the waiting list).. she only has 6 months left to live. How can we just let a mother of 2 children die, if there's something we can do about it? But then you have to consider that livers don't exactly grow on trees, hence why there is a waiting list for them. Not only that, but she already received a transplant beforehand, yet she still continued her destructive habit of abusing drugs. To me, that first transplant is already wasted, yet there is a big deal about her being refused a second one?
There are many people out there who need a transplant to survive. As far as I know, it is highly unlikely that all of them will receive a transplant. So I think she was quite lucky to receive her first one... let alone trying to get another. I'm not saying she deserves to die or anything... it takes a lot to say someone truely deserves to die (like a murderer who has no remorse)... but this is what almost made me vomit:
(Quote from the father, in the article) "She now has three to six months to live," he said. "We're very aware that if Claire goes back on the list it doesn't mean she's going to get one and it's not necessarily going to save her life. But everyone deserves another chance."
I truely believe everyone deserves another chance, but it is up to that person to make up for their mistake. In this case, she already got her second chance. She got the liver transplant, and yet she continued to endanger her health again. How many livers replacements does someone need until they finally break their habit? What about all those people still waiting for a liver who will also die if they don't get one? To my knowledge, it's already very difficult for drug addicts to be accepted to receive a transplant... probably the main reason she was able to get her first one, was that she has young children.
He said 19 liver transplants were carried out in WA last year, and three people died waiting for a new liver.
What about those 3 people who died while waiting for a liver? It would not be surprising if there will be a similar number this year. Is she more deserving to receive a second implant than those other people? I don't have a definite answer to that, but it is my opinion that transplants can not be wasted because of stupid reasons like the patient is a drug addict and still doesn't break the habit. I'm not saying it is easy to break an addiction, but you would think they would try really hard considering how fortunate she was to receive the donor liver.
I guess there might be other circumstances that caused the liver to fail, but the only information provided was the continued drug use, and inadequate rehabilitation... but to me, continuing drug use is just plain stupid, whether it caused the liver to fail or not. You should have the decency to try to do anything you can to prevent the liver from failing... first step would be to get rid of any bad drugs like heroin, and having your family ensure you stay away from it (i.e. they keep an eye on you).
Seems like they are going to see a specialist to try to do a live donation, via a family member, so I hope that works out for them, because things that have a very limited supply... need to be very carefully distributed.
So the basic facts of the story are:
1. 24 year old, mother of 2 children (aged 5 and 4)
2. refused second liver transplant
3. was a drug addict, which resulted in her neededing the first liver transplant
4. continued to use drugs after the first liver transplant
Now there are some conflicting issues here. Firstly, since she has been refused the transplant (well, to be put on the waiting list).. she only has 6 months left to live. How can we just let a mother of 2 children die, if there's something we can do about it? But then you have to consider that livers don't exactly grow on trees, hence why there is a waiting list for them. Not only that, but she already received a transplant beforehand, yet she still continued her destructive habit of abusing drugs. To me, that first transplant is already wasted, yet there is a big deal about her being refused a second one?
There are many people out there who need a transplant to survive. As far as I know, it is highly unlikely that all of them will receive a transplant. So I think she was quite lucky to receive her first one... let alone trying to get another. I'm not saying she deserves to die or anything... it takes a lot to say someone truely deserves to die (like a murderer who has no remorse)... but this is what almost made me vomit:
(Quote from the father, in the article) "She now has three to six months to live," he said. "We're very aware that if Claire goes back on the list it doesn't mean she's going to get one and it's not necessarily going to save her life. But everyone deserves another chance."
I truely believe everyone deserves another chance, but it is up to that person to make up for their mistake. In this case, she already got her second chance. She got the liver transplant, and yet she continued to endanger her health again. How many livers replacements does someone need until they finally break their habit? What about all those people still waiting for a liver who will also die if they don't get one? To my knowledge, it's already very difficult for drug addicts to be accepted to receive a transplant... probably the main reason she was able to get her first one, was that she has young children.
He said 19 liver transplants were carried out in WA last year, and three people died waiting for a new liver.
What about those 3 people who died while waiting for a liver? It would not be surprising if there will be a similar number this year. Is she more deserving to receive a second implant than those other people? I don't have a definite answer to that, but it is my opinion that transplants can not be wasted because of stupid reasons like the patient is a drug addict and still doesn't break the habit. I'm not saying it is easy to break an addiction, but you would think they would try really hard considering how fortunate she was to receive the donor liver.
I guess there might be other circumstances that caused the liver to fail, but the only information provided was the continued drug use, and inadequate rehabilitation... but to me, continuing drug use is just plain stupid, whether it caused the liver to fail or not. You should have the decency to try to do anything you can to prevent the liver from failing... first step would be to get rid of any bad drugs like heroin, and having your family ensure you stay away from it (i.e. they keep an eye on you).
Seems like they are going to see a specialist to try to do a live donation, via a family member, so I hope that works out for them, because things that have a very limited supply... need to be very carefully distributed.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
News Watch: Opening up old wounds
One thing that I get tired of, is when something bad occurs...theres lots of talk on the media and at the water cooler... then people get over it and its laid to rest... but then it has to be brought up yet again. The thing that I'm talking about, is the suspension of Kyle and Jackie'O a few months back... which is brought up again here : http://www.smh.com.au/news/entertainment/kyle-jackie/2009/12/16/1260639217393.html
I am a fan of their show, and have been for a long time, so I could be a bit biased here... but I do find it annoying that I have to keep seeing the same thing brought up over and over, especially when the media is twisting it to make them sound like bad people.
The incident I'm referring to, is when the Kyle and Jackie'O show had a segment, which involved putting someone on a lie detector. A worried mother put her daughter on the lie detector because she wanted to know what was bothering her daughter and causing her to lead a destructive life. The plug was pulled when the daughter got angry and yelled out that she had gotten raped when she was 12 years old (she is 14 when she was on the lie detector).
I believe the Kyle and Jackie'O show did the right thing in stopping the segment straight away, and making sure the daughter was directed to the right people to get her help on the matter. But the media is making it out to be like it was the show's fault, and that they never should have put it on air... when it's not like the Kyle and Jackie'O show knew that the daughter had gotten raped in the first place... if they had known, they wouldn't have needed to end the segment in a panic.
It's not just this article too... but there have been many other articles in the past that are just lashing out at the show for doing something that they had no idea was going to turn out the way that it did. In fact, the real person to blame is the person who raped the girl... if it wasn't for whoever that was, then this segment wouldn't have turned out the way it did. Besides... in my opinion, it's better that it's out in the open. Obviously it could have been done privately, but according to the mother, she had already tried everything to try to get her daughter to talk to her about what was wrong. So at least they were able to get her to counselling and try to help her exit the destructive life that she was having. Obviously being raped at such a young age is a terrible thing to happen, and it has an extremely damaging effect on the girl, so it's better than people were made aware of it so something could be done, rather than her turning wilder and more out of control... which would probably have led to drug usage, dropping out of school, turning to prostitution, etc.
Well that's how I feel about the situation... and I hope the girl is ok now... but I think it's a good example of how easily the media can twist things, hence why they hold so much power in this world.
I am a fan of their show, and have been for a long time, so I could be a bit biased here... but I do find it annoying that I have to keep seeing the same thing brought up over and over, especially when the media is twisting it to make them sound like bad people.
The incident I'm referring to, is when the Kyle and Jackie'O show had a segment, which involved putting someone on a lie detector. A worried mother put her daughter on the lie detector because she wanted to know what was bothering her daughter and causing her to lead a destructive life. The plug was pulled when the daughter got angry and yelled out that she had gotten raped when she was 12 years old (she is 14 when she was on the lie detector).
I believe the Kyle and Jackie'O show did the right thing in stopping the segment straight away, and making sure the daughter was directed to the right people to get her help on the matter. But the media is making it out to be like it was the show's fault, and that they never should have put it on air... when it's not like the Kyle and Jackie'O show knew that the daughter had gotten raped in the first place... if they had known, they wouldn't have needed to end the segment in a panic.
It's not just this article too... but there have been many other articles in the past that are just lashing out at the show for doing something that they had no idea was going to turn out the way that it did. In fact, the real person to blame is the person who raped the girl... if it wasn't for whoever that was, then this segment wouldn't have turned out the way it did. Besides... in my opinion, it's better that it's out in the open. Obviously it could have been done privately, but according to the mother, she had already tried everything to try to get her daughter to talk to her about what was wrong. So at least they were able to get her to counselling and try to help her exit the destructive life that she was having. Obviously being raped at such a young age is a terrible thing to happen, and it has an extremely damaging effect on the girl, so it's better than people were made aware of it so something could be done, rather than her turning wilder and more out of control... which would probably have led to drug usage, dropping out of school, turning to prostitution, etc.
Well that's how I feel about the situation... and I hope the girl is ok now... but I think it's a good example of how easily the media can twist things, hence why they hold so much power in this world.
Sunday, November 29, 2009
News Watch: What would you have done?
A very tragic story made the headlines this morning, and you can read it here http://tinyurl.com/yepeb7k
One of the questions that you sometimes hear is... given a choice between saving 1 out of 2 loved ones, who would you save? We never want to answer this kind of question, as no matter what the answer is... its going to be bad.
In this case, the father had to choose between his wife or his son. Well, ideally he would've tried to save both, but time was of the essence as the car was sinking deeper. He chose to free his wife first and got her back up to shore, but unfortunately the car had sunk too deep for him to free his son, and even more unfortunately... the rescue team weren't able to get to him in time.
I know things can change in the heat of the moment, especially at a time like that where you really dont have time to think about things, but if I was in that position I think I would have saved my kid first... as I don't think anyone should have to die so young, and I think my wife would understand in that situation. If I was in the wife's position, I would find it hard to live knowing that my child died while I got rescued.
I wish the best for this family in such a tragic time, and I hope that anyone reading this never has to go through this kind of decision.
RIP Silva Natana Horton
One of the questions that you sometimes hear is... given a choice between saving 1 out of 2 loved ones, who would you save? We never want to answer this kind of question, as no matter what the answer is... its going to be bad.
In this case, the father had to choose between his wife or his son. Well, ideally he would've tried to save both, but time was of the essence as the car was sinking deeper. He chose to free his wife first and got her back up to shore, but unfortunately the car had sunk too deep for him to free his son, and even more unfortunately... the rescue team weren't able to get to him in time.
I know things can change in the heat of the moment, especially at a time like that where you really dont have time to think about things, but if I was in that position I think I would have saved my kid first... as I don't think anyone should have to die so young, and I think my wife would understand in that situation. If I was in the wife's position, I would find it hard to live knowing that my child died while I got rescued.
I wish the best for this family in such a tragic time, and I hope that anyone reading this never has to go through this kind of decision.
RIP Silva Natana Horton
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
News Watch: Japanese man marries anime girl
A rather interesting story about a man who fell in love with a character made from a Nintendo DS game called "Love Plus", which you can read about here http://tinyurl.com/yj99yqr
This is the first time I've heard of this game. Apparently you pick a girlfriend in the game, and try to woo her like you would for an actual girl. Probably the most interesting thing is that to kiss the girl, you quite literally kiss the DS (wonder what would happen if they made a function to have sex with her =P). So anyway, I think a lot of people would be WTFing at this. I can definitely understand that people will be quite quick to judge this guy's actions... and it's probably due to upbringing and how that has developed our sense of what should be normal.
I wonder what his family must be thinking during the wedding ceremony (although note that it wasn't actually legally binding)... I don't really know how accepting Japanese families would be of this, but I'm quite certain that if that were to be a case in Australia... it would not end so happily.
Personally I'm a pretty open sort of guy, so I can understand why that he could genuinely fall in love with a video game character and want to marry her (not that I would do this myself). At the end of the day... as long as it makes him happy, then I think it's a good thing. Maybe his family wasn't very accepting of it, and definitely a lot of people from western cultures would laugh about it and think he's a weirdo... but I think that for all cases like this where people judge you for doing things which are considered to be out of the norm... well, you should just ignore people and just do what you feel is right and what you feel will make you happy. It's kind of like people who can not accept gay/lesbian marriages, or interracial marriages in my opinion. Why should other people stop you from doing what makes you happy, and how you live your life?
Anyway that is my rant for the day. I hope this helps encourage people in similar situations.
This is the first time I've heard of this game. Apparently you pick a girlfriend in the game, and try to woo her like you would for an actual girl. Probably the most interesting thing is that to kiss the girl, you quite literally kiss the DS (wonder what would happen if they made a function to have sex with her =P). So anyway, I think a lot of people would be WTFing at this. I can definitely understand that people will be quite quick to judge this guy's actions... and it's probably due to upbringing and how that has developed our sense of what should be normal.
I wonder what his family must be thinking during the wedding ceremony (although note that it wasn't actually legally binding)... I don't really know how accepting Japanese families would be of this, but I'm quite certain that if that were to be a case in Australia... it would not end so happily.
Personally I'm a pretty open sort of guy, so I can understand why that he could genuinely fall in love with a video game character and want to marry her (not that I would do this myself). At the end of the day... as long as it makes him happy, then I think it's a good thing. Maybe his family wasn't very accepting of it, and definitely a lot of people from western cultures would laugh about it and think he's a weirdo... but I think that for all cases like this where people judge you for doing things which are considered to be out of the norm... well, you should just ignore people and just do what you feel is right and what you feel will make you happy. It's kind of like people who can not accept gay/lesbian marriages, or interracial marriages in my opinion. Why should other people stop you from doing what makes you happy, and how you live your life?
Anyway that is my rant for the day. I hope this helps encourage people in similar situations.
Sunday, November 1, 2009
News Watch: Another bizarre story
I was gonna continue with reviews today... but this caught my eye and I wanted to share it:
http://tinyurl.com/yhm9z6r
Not being a girl myself... I could be wrong about this... but to my understanding, I think a lot of girls are inspired by fairy tales and imagine themselves being saved by their prince charming, who they fall in love with and live happily ever after.
This girl may have had that fantasy... and it actually happened for her... almost. At the age of 11, she was saved from bullies in a playground by a 19 year old guy. She must've fallen for him, because she asked him out for their first date... then she became pregnant a week later and married him 9 months later. She then gave birth to her baby on the day of her wedding.
The guy thought that she was 15... I dunno how you can mistake a 11 year old for a 15 year old... so for his sake, I'd hope that she's pretty developed for her age to make that believable. The girl had not received any sex education yet, and I think its actually a good idea to start sex education at year 6, which would be roughly around her age... whether its at school, or through parents. Obviously you don't want your kids to be fooling around with sex at that age, so its good that they're aware of what it is... and you can teach them to wait until they're a certain age before they go for it... or at the very least, teach them about contraception in case they do decide they want to do the deed. Personally I had my first sex education classes in year 6, and my class was fine with it... wasn't a big deal.
Even still... its surprising that the guy didn't use a condom... being 19 years old, he should know better. This is the problem many young people face these days... if nothing else, I do hope that all these news about young pregnancies and health risks finally start to open some eyes. In the end we're all responsible for our own actions... as much as teachers and parents try to prevent these things.
The guy has to go to jail for 6 years... which is not really that bad considering its a pretty hefty crime. I guess they took into account that it was a consensual act, and its important that the baby grows up with her mother and father. I think it would've been better if he was able to get out earlier... at least before the kid starts school.
The girls grandmother also had her first child when she was 13... and apparently its not uncommon in their country... in fact its kind of a tradition to get pregnant young (weird tradition). To be honest, I'm not all that surprised at these young pregnancies... I'm more surprised that the older person involved in some of these pregnancies aren't more careful. Its not hard to use a rubber... and its a hell of a lot cheaper than having an unplanned baby, especially at that age.
Anyway enough of this rant... should be back to reviewing tomorrow if I'm not too busy
http://tinyurl.com/yhm9z6r
Not being a girl myself... I could be wrong about this... but to my understanding, I think a lot of girls are inspired by fairy tales and imagine themselves being saved by their prince charming, who they fall in love with and live happily ever after.
This girl may have had that fantasy... and it actually happened for her... almost. At the age of 11, she was saved from bullies in a playground by a 19 year old guy. She must've fallen for him, because she asked him out for their first date... then she became pregnant a week later and married him 9 months later. She then gave birth to her baby on the day of her wedding.
The guy thought that she was 15... I dunno how you can mistake a 11 year old for a 15 year old... so for his sake, I'd hope that she's pretty developed for her age to make that believable. The girl had not received any sex education yet, and I think its actually a good idea to start sex education at year 6, which would be roughly around her age... whether its at school, or through parents. Obviously you don't want your kids to be fooling around with sex at that age, so its good that they're aware of what it is... and you can teach them to wait until they're a certain age before they go for it... or at the very least, teach them about contraception in case they do decide they want to do the deed. Personally I had my first sex education classes in year 6, and my class was fine with it... wasn't a big deal.
Even still... its surprising that the guy didn't use a condom... being 19 years old, he should know better. This is the problem many young people face these days... if nothing else, I do hope that all these news about young pregnancies and health risks finally start to open some eyes. In the end we're all responsible for our own actions... as much as teachers and parents try to prevent these things.
The guy has to go to jail for 6 years... which is not really that bad considering its a pretty hefty crime. I guess they took into account that it was a consensual act, and its important that the baby grows up with her mother and father. I think it would've been better if he was able to get out earlier... at least before the kid starts school.
The girls grandmother also had her first child when she was 13... and apparently its not uncommon in their country... in fact its kind of a tradition to get pregnant young (weird tradition). To be honest, I'm not all that surprised at these young pregnancies... I'm more surprised that the older person involved in some of these pregnancies aren't more careful. Its not hard to use a rubber... and its a hell of a lot cheaper than having an unplanned baby, especially at that age.
Anyway enough of this rant... should be back to reviewing tomorrow if I'm not too busy
Thursday, October 29, 2009
News Watch: Teenagers getting worse and worse...
Source: http://tinyurl.com/ylfp72t
I was quite disgusted to hear of the behaviour that took place. Not only was this poor 15 year old girl raped... but in an earlier article regarding this incident... it said that onlookers were laughing and joining in. The world is a seriously screwed up place when shit like this is happening.
In the article the 'bystander' said he did not participate in attack, but when asked why didn't he try to stop it... he says he feared he would get his ass kicked. Well perhaps he should have used his brains and left the scene and then called the police.
Now this is why you shouldn't binge drink, let alone binge drink when you're underage. If nothing else... let this be a lesson to any young girls who have read the story. Don't participate in underage drinking, especially with random guys that you have never met. If you are going to a party where there is alcohol involved, make sure you go with a large group of friends that will watch out for each other (cause we'd be fools to assume that all teenagers will behave themselves and not be tempted to drink alcohol before they're 18).
While we're on this subject, I'd like to also talk about this article: http://tinyurl.com/yhkamhd
This is relating to yet another case of gang-rape (seems like a lot of rape related crimes are flooding the news this week). One of the teens involved suffered from some retribution from the general public. In particular, I wanted to talk about this paragraph in the article:
"What goes around comes around," screamed one woman. "You filthy maggot," screamed another man who pursued Cantwell down the pavement, verbally abusing him all the way. Another screamed: "You f---ing parasite."
So essentially the mob beat up this teenager charged with gang-rape, whilst yelling this sort of stuff. Now I can understand that some people feel that they should take matters into their own hands, because the law is so slow at persecuting criminals. To an extent, I can understand and agree with this view. If you take a look at the news of various cases like kidnap, rape, murder, arson, etc... it usually takes at least a couple of years before the offender is charged and sentenced. Thats a pretty damn long time for the victims and their family + friends to wait till the offender has to do their time... and in a lot of cases, spending time in jail can not really compare to what some people have had to suffer when the offender committed the crime.
Take for instance the girl in the previous article who got raped at her homecoming dance. If you were a young girl, and you got raped by X number of guys, at 1 of the most important nights of your high school life... would you find it fair that the guys simply go to jail for that? Not only would the rape be traumatic, but the aftermath would be terrible for her as well. She would have trust issues with males, she'd be humiliated and have a hard time at school, and she could just become mentally damaged... the after-effects usually vary depending on the severity of the situation and on the individual... but pretty safe to assume that the consequences of this would be devastating.
So on that note, I can understand that some people feel the need to take the law into their own hands... however vengeance never solves anything... it tends to just extend to more people wanting to take revenge on some matter, which just becomes a continuous and vicious cycle. So finally, yes the law sucks in dealing with matters in a timely fashion, but let the law enforcers do their job. Its unfortunate that jail is really the only severe punishment available... anything further than that would be considered inhumane... but thats another topic for another time.
Final words of wisdom from South Park's Mr Mackey, "Drugs are bad...mmmkay"
I was quite disgusted to hear of the behaviour that took place. Not only was this poor 15 year old girl raped... but in an earlier article regarding this incident... it said that onlookers were laughing and joining in. The world is a seriously screwed up place when shit like this is happening.
In the article the 'bystander' said he did not participate in attack, but when asked why didn't he try to stop it... he says he feared he would get his ass kicked. Well perhaps he should have used his brains and left the scene and then called the police.
Now this is why you shouldn't binge drink, let alone binge drink when you're underage. If nothing else... let this be a lesson to any young girls who have read the story. Don't participate in underage drinking, especially with random guys that you have never met. If you are going to a party where there is alcohol involved, make sure you go with a large group of friends that will watch out for each other (cause we'd be fools to assume that all teenagers will behave themselves and not be tempted to drink alcohol before they're 18).
While we're on this subject, I'd like to also talk about this article: http://tinyurl.com/yhkamhd
This is relating to yet another case of gang-rape (seems like a lot of rape related crimes are flooding the news this week). One of the teens involved suffered from some retribution from the general public. In particular, I wanted to talk about this paragraph in the article:
"What goes around comes around," screamed one woman. "You filthy maggot," screamed another man who pursued Cantwell down the pavement, verbally abusing him all the way. Another screamed: "You f---ing parasite."
So essentially the mob beat up this teenager charged with gang-rape, whilst yelling this sort of stuff. Now I can understand that some people feel that they should take matters into their own hands, because the law is so slow at persecuting criminals. To an extent, I can understand and agree with this view. If you take a look at the news of various cases like kidnap, rape, murder, arson, etc... it usually takes at least a couple of years before the offender is charged and sentenced. Thats a pretty damn long time for the victims and their family + friends to wait till the offender has to do their time... and in a lot of cases, spending time in jail can not really compare to what some people have had to suffer when the offender committed the crime.
Take for instance the girl in the previous article who got raped at her homecoming dance. If you were a young girl, and you got raped by X number of guys, at 1 of the most important nights of your high school life... would you find it fair that the guys simply go to jail for that? Not only would the rape be traumatic, but the aftermath would be terrible for her as well. She would have trust issues with males, she'd be humiliated and have a hard time at school, and she could just become mentally damaged... the after-effects usually vary depending on the severity of the situation and on the individual... but pretty safe to assume that the consequences of this would be devastating.
So on that note, I can understand that some people feel the need to take the law into their own hands... however vengeance never solves anything... it tends to just extend to more people wanting to take revenge on some matter, which just becomes a continuous and vicious cycle. So finally, yes the law sucks in dealing with matters in a timely fashion, but let the law enforcers do their job. Its unfortunate that jail is really the only severe punishment available... anything further than that would be considered inhumane... but thats another topic for another time.
Final words of wisdom from South Park's Mr Mackey, "Drugs are bad...mmmkay"
Monday, October 5, 2009
News Watch: Change your Hotmail Passwords
So apparently many email details were published on a site, and you can read the article here: http://tinyurl.com/y8sd2n5
This makes me very sad... as I've never had any problems with hotmail since I first started an account back in like 1999 or something. I've had the same 4 letter password for all of these years, and I've finally had to ditch it for a longer password, since you can't have 4 letter passwords anymore.
Even though apparently only accounts starting with a and b were leaked, it is advised that everyone who has a hotmail account change their password just in case. I've been logging into my account just fine and I have not seen any signs of hacking, but its better to be safe than sorry... so I'd recommend that everyone change their passwords.
This makes me very sad... as I've never had any problems with hotmail since I first started an account back in like 1999 or something. I've had the same 4 letter password for all of these years, and I've finally had to ditch it for a longer password, since you can't have 4 letter passwords anymore.
Even though apparently only accounts starting with a and b were leaked, it is advised that everyone who has a hotmail account change their password just in case. I've been logging into my account just fine and I have not seen any signs of hacking, but its better to be safe than sorry... so I'd recommend that everyone change their passwords.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
News Watch: "Lock up your daughters"
I'm sure most people would have heard of the phrase "lock up your daughters" in some shape or form. The context it would normally be used in is when young guys are out looking to pick up girls, and the guys self-proclaim themselves as dangerous studs.
However, more recently... this phrase can be seen as have been taken far too literally. If you thought the Josef Friztl case wasn't bad enough... there has yet been another similar incident, which you can read about here: http://tinyurl.com/mah3p2
This is the third case of this type that I've seen in the past year or so... and it is quite disturbing to know that there are people like this in the world. The other case that I had seen was the Sheffield case, which involved 2 daughters.
However, whilst obviously the father commited a serious crime... I want to question how the mother of the girl involved never questioned how her daughter got pregnant 4 times and not know who the biological father of those children were. Also, in an earlier article regarding this incident, it was mentioned that the birth certificates didn't state a father for the children. Anyway... surely if your daughter got pregnant, you'd enquire as to who the father is =\ and if she said "just some guy", which would be expected since she was obviously afraid of any repercussions from her father... then surely it would raise suspicions.
Now I'm really surprised that this type of incident not only happened once... but multiple times in various places in the world. All of the cases I've seen so far have been long-term abuse of many years, which makes one wonder how much planning these men have put into it in order to have kept this going for so long. It really disgusts me to know that not only can people not trust the average Joe stranger they meet at random... but some people aren't even able to trust their own parents... and its a very sad thing to know. Its true that its still a one in a billion chance that it happens... but take a moment to imagine being that one...
However, more recently... this phrase can be seen as have been taken far too literally. If you thought the Josef Friztl case wasn't bad enough... there has yet been another similar incident, which you can read about here: http://tinyurl.com/mah3p2
This is the third case of this type that I've seen in the past year or so... and it is quite disturbing to know that there are people like this in the world. The other case that I had seen was the Sheffield case, which involved 2 daughters.
However, whilst obviously the father commited a serious crime... I want to question how the mother of the girl involved never questioned how her daughter got pregnant 4 times and not know who the biological father of those children were. Also, in an earlier article regarding this incident, it was mentioned that the birth certificates didn't state a father for the children. Anyway... surely if your daughter got pregnant, you'd enquire as to who the father is =\ and if she said "just some guy", which would be expected since she was obviously afraid of any repercussions from her father... then surely it would raise suspicions.
Now I'm really surprised that this type of incident not only happened once... but multiple times in various places in the world. All of the cases I've seen so far have been long-term abuse of many years, which makes one wonder how much planning these men have put into it in order to have kept this going for so long. It really disgusts me to know that not only can people not trust the average Joe stranger they meet at random... but some people aren't even able to trust their own parents... and its a very sad thing to know. Its true that its still a one in a billion chance that it happens... but take a moment to imagine being that one...
Sunday, September 13, 2009
News Watch: Too Young to Love?
A rather interesting case popped up in the news today regarding underaged sex and marriage. For reference, the article can be viewed here; http://tinyurl.com/rcas46
The case relates to a boy and girl who met each other when they were 16 and 12 respectively. They fell in love and were married through Aboriginal customs. A judge, and their families supported the marriage and acknowledged that the couple were in love. The girl was later impregnated when she was 14, and the boy was 18. Now this is when the sirens start going off... it is common knowledge that the age of consent in Australia is 16 (generally speaking). Aboriginal culture does not have an age of consent... this results in a clash between 2 different laws/customs. Not only that... but the age requirement to marry in Australia is 18, or 16 with parental consent and permission from the court. So the boy was 16, parents from both parties consented, a judge acknowledged them, but the girl was not 16. Again a clash in laws/customs.
Personally I feel this topic is a bit....brain-washed. We are raised to believe that underaged sex is wrong, and that you shouldn't get married before certain ages. The laws are in place to protect young people from being deceived or taken advantage of by another person... thats fine and all. However it doesn't take into account whether a person has genuinely fallen in love with the other person. Say in this particular case... when people read something like 'a 16 year old boy and a 12 year old girl fell in love and got married, and they had a child when he was 18 and she was 14'... the general reaction would be 'omg, what a pedophile'. It seems to me that people can not perceive that someone could fall in love with another person who isn't even a teenager yet, and they also can not perceive that a girl that young is capable of falling in love.
As a result of this clash of laws, the boy has had to spend time in jail and had to plead guilty to a 'crime'. It just seems so odd to me that the point of having court cases was to take into account all relevant factors before a decision is made about what the outcome will be. As mentioned before... the parents from both sides had acknowledged the relationship, and they'd obviously knew that with the marriage... sex would follow. So if the parents were ok with it, why should other people have to butt in and ruin their happiness.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying all underaged sex is fine... theres a fine line between a young person who is in love with another, as opposed to a young person who is preyed upon by an older person. I just think people should not be closed minded about the subject and automatically judge people based on whats apparently the 'norm'... whether its the courts, or the general public.
On the topic of norms... similar reactions occur when there is news about other cultures that have their own norms... which would obviously differ to 'whitefella' norms. For example, some countries allow polygamous relationships... whereas it is considered wrong in other countries... and really, who is to say it is right or wrong? I feel its the same for many things, including this topic of age of consent. If there was really a right answer, then every country would have the same age of consent, marriage rules, legal drinking age, and other things. I find that the age of consent issue is a very difficult area... do people magically become capable of deciding for themselves whether they're ready for sex once their 16th birthday arrives? it could be argued that teenagers are no less informed when they're 15, or no more informed when they're 17. In my opinion there needs to be more room on the individual level... because not everyone is the same, and I don't feel its fair that the law automatically will veto the opinion of an underaged person just because the law deems that he/she does not have the capacity to make their own decision.
However on a side note regarding the case, it does make it hard if people are governed by 2 different laws or customs, so perhaps thats something that should be fixed as well. Perhaps this case might open a few eyes.
The case relates to a boy and girl who met each other when they were 16 and 12 respectively. They fell in love and were married through Aboriginal customs. A judge, and their families supported the marriage and acknowledged that the couple were in love. The girl was later impregnated when she was 14, and the boy was 18. Now this is when the sirens start going off... it is common knowledge that the age of consent in Australia is 16 (generally speaking). Aboriginal culture does not have an age of consent... this results in a clash between 2 different laws/customs. Not only that... but the age requirement to marry in Australia is 18, or 16 with parental consent and permission from the court. So the boy was 16, parents from both parties consented, a judge acknowledged them, but the girl was not 16. Again a clash in laws/customs.
Personally I feel this topic is a bit....brain-washed. We are raised to believe that underaged sex is wrong, and that you shouldn't get married before certain ages. The laws are in place to protect young people from being deceived or taken advantage of by another person... thats fine and all. However it doesn't take into account whether a person has genuinely fallen in love with the other person. Say in this particular case... when people read something like 'a 16 year old boy and a 12 year old girl fell in love and got married, and they had a child when he was 18 and she was 14'... the general reaction would be 'omg, what a pedophile'. It seems to me that people can not perceive that someone could fall in love with another person who isn't even a teenager yet, and they also can not perceive that a girl that young is capable of falling in love.
As a result of this clash of laws, the boy has had to spend time in jail and had to plead guilty to a 'crime'. It just seems so odd to me that the point of having court cases was to take into account all relevant factors before a decision is made about what the outcome will be. As mentioned before... the parents from both sides had acknowledged the relationship, and they'd obviously knew that with the marriage... sex would follow. So if the parents were ok with it, why should other people have to butt in and ruin their happiness.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying all underaged sex is fine... theres a fine line between a young person who is in love with another, as opposed to a young person who is preyed upon by an older person. I just think people should not be closed minded about the subject and automatically judge people based on whats apparently the 'norm'... whether its the courts, or the general public.
On the topic of norms... similar reactions occur when there is news about other cultures that have their own norms... which would obviously differ to 'whitefella' norms. For example, some countries allow polygamous relationships... whereas it is considered wrong in other countries... and really, who is to say it is right or wrong? I feel its the same for many things, including this topic of age of consent. If there was really a right answer, then every country would have the same age of consent, marriage rules, legal drinking age, and other things. I find that the age of consent issue is a very difficult area... do people magically become capable of deciding for themselves whether they're ready for sex once their 16th birthday arrives? it could be argued that teenagers are no less informed when they're 15, or no more informed when they're 17. In my opinion there needs to be more room on the individual level... because not everyone is the same, and I don't feel its fair that the law automatically will veto the opinion of an underaged person just because the law deems that he/she does not have the capacity to make their own decision.
However on a side note regarding the case, it does make it hard if people are governed by 2 different laws or customs, so perhaps thats something that should be fixed as well. Perhaps this case might open a few eyes.
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
News Watch: Addicted or just retarded?
So I came across this rather riduclous article (imo) http://tinyurl.com/l3577x
Apparently World of Warcraft (WoW) is so addictive that its being compared to things like drugs... and as such similar measures like having clinics to stop 'WoW addiction.' How utterly ridiculous is this... there are millions of people playing WoW, does that mean all of them have this addiction? Sure in some cases, people probably do get addicted which causes bizarre things like the case mentioned in the article about a Korean couple who left their baby alone to die, while they went to an internet cafe to play WoW. Its obviously an unfortunate case, but it doesnt mean its going to happen to every couple who plays WoW... which is what I find comparing WoW to drugs is trying to imply. Drugs are naturally addictive... like nicotine as an example. WoW is not like that, otherwise a large portion of this world would be sitting in front of their computers all day leading a self-destructive life of pure WoW.
Yes there are a number of cases where people take the game to the extreme and cause it to destroy their lives. But its not like its some kind of epidemic... I know tonnes of people who play the game, but never to an extreme. These extreme cases are a small minority of gamers. By all means help the stupid people who neglect everything except WoW, but don't go on trying to make it sound like the next plague or something.
On a lighter note, the article mentions a 'disturbing case' of someone who 450 total played days over a 3.5 year period. I wonder what they would think about Stian from Destromath (US). For those who don't know who I'm talking about, he is actually the main person worldwide to make a case about improving the Balance tree and thus getting Blizzard to develop Moonkin druids. However thats not the reason why I mention him... the reason is because after about 1.5 years since classic came out, he posted a screenshot of him hitting 365 played days on his druid alone. It may not have been exactly 1.5 years real time, but we ended up calculating that for him to have reached 365 played days in that time... he would have to have bought the game the day it came out, and played 16-18 hours a day, every day of the week without a break until he posted that screenshot. The funnier thing is... I've never seen him go AFK. He also completed the grind to Grand Marshal (the honor system was very different back then... although he wasnt very good at PVP, just burnt a lot of time doing it) and apparently completed every possible quest in the game and had exalted for every possible faction. Talk about dedication....
Apparently World of Warcraft (WoW) is so addictive that its being compared to things like drugs... and as such similar measures like having clinics to stop 'WoW addiction.' How utterly ridiculous is this... there are millions of people playing WoW, does that mean all of them have this addiction? Sure in some cases, people probably do get addicted which causes bizarre things like the case mentioned in the article about a Korean couple who left their baby alone to die, while they went to an internet cafe to play WoW. Its obviously an unfortunate case, but it doesnt mean its going to happen to every couple who plays WoW... which is what I find comparing WoW to drugs is trying to imply. Drugs are naturally addictive... like nicotine as an example. WoW is not like that, otherwise a large portion of this world would be sitting in front of their computers all day leading a self-destructive life of pure WoW.
Yes there are a number of cases where people take the game to the extreme and cause it to destroy their lives. But its not like its some kind of epidemic... I know tonnes of people who play the game, but never to an extreme. These extreme cases are a small minority of gamers. By all means help the stupid people who neglect everything except WoW, but don't go on trying to make it sound like the next plague or something.
On a lighter note, the article mentions a 'disturbing case' of someone who 450 total played days over a 3.5 year period. I wonder what they would think about Stian from Destromath (US). For those who don't know who I'm talking about, he is actually the main person worldwide to make a case about improving the Balance tree and thus getting Blizzard to develop Moonkin druids. However thats not the reason why I mention him... the reason is because after about 1.5 years since classic came out, he posted a screenshot of him hitting 365 played days on his druid alone. It may not have been exactly 1.5 years real time, but we ended up calculating that for him to have reached 365 played days in that time... he would have to have bought the game the day it came out, and played 16-18 hours a day, every day of the week without a break until he posted that screenshot. The funnier thing is... I've never seen him go AFK. He also completed the grind to Grand Marshal (the honor system was very different back then... although he wasnt very good at PVP, just burnt a lot of time doing it) and apparently completed every possible quest in the game and had exalted for every possible faction. Talk about dedication....
Monday, August 24, 2009
News Watch: Prosecutor named to probe CIA interrogations
For reference, the news source is from this article: http://www.smh.com.au/world/prosecutor-named-to-probe-cia-interrogations-20090825-ewsp.html
So media is making a big deal about interrogation methods used by the CIA. Examples that were given were 'threats to rape family members of terror suspects, execute their kids, torture with an electric drill.'
You get the usual complaints like "its inhumane... we are no better than them... etc", however so far it seems like it was just purely threats, rather than things that were actually carried out... or at least as far as I can tell. What I dont get is, if they didn't interrogate him in this way... how were they going to get information out of him? Ask him nicely? =\
I wouldn't condone actually carrying out those kind of threats... since those family members and kids probably aren't involved with the terrorist acts, but if you want information from a criminal... sometimes u just need to make them believe that you would actually carry out a horrific threat. Hes not exactly going to volunteer the information... so if the CIA is going to get anywhere with the investigation... then they will probably need to do what they have to. I think the key is making him 'believe' that the CIA will do anything it has to, rather than the CIA actually doing it. So I guess it probably doesn't help if the CIA cops a lot of flak for this... as it means Khalid probably wont believe the CIA has the guts to carry out their threats due to the bad reputation they would get... and thus hes not gonna talk, and they'll be back to square one.
Don't misunderstand me... all of this killing is plain wrong, whether its by the terrorists or by the Americans... but this case is weighing the suffering of one man (who was responsible for the killing of many) compared to the thousands or millions that would need to suffer because of this. September 11 was enough of a tragedy for me to see in this lifetime.
So media is making a big deal about interrogation methods used by the CIA. Examples that were given were 'threats to rape family members of terror suspects, execute their kids, torture with an electric drill.'
You get the usual complaints like "its inhumane... we are no better than them... etc", however so far it seems like it was just purely threats, rather than things that were actually carried out... or at least as far as I can tell. What I dont get is, if they didn't interrogate him in this way... how were they going to get information out of him? Ask him nicely? =\
I wouldn't condone actually carrying out those kind of threats... since those family members and kids probably aren't involved with the terrorist acts, but if you want information from a criminal... sometimes u just need to make them believe that you would actually carry out a horrific threat. Hes not exactly going to volunteer the information... so if the CIA is going to get anywhere with the investigation... then they will probably need to do what they have to. I think the key is making him 'believe' that the CIA will do anything it has to, rather than the CIA actually doing it. So I guess it probably doesn't help if the CIA cops a lot of flak for this... as it means Khalid probably wont believe the CIA has the guts to carry out their threats due to the bad reputation they would get... and thus hes not gonna talk, and they'll be back to square one.
Don't misunderstand me... all of this killing is plain wrong, whether its by the terrorists or by the Americans... but this case is weighing the suffering of one man (who was responsible for the killing of many) compared to the thousands or millions that would need to suffer because of this. September 11 was enough of a tragedy for me to see in this lifetime.
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
News Watch: Why women poach men
So I read an interesting article today which reminded me of this very same topic being discussed on the radio. For reference, the article is: http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/lifematters/why-women-poach-men-20090818-eoib.html
Not only did the women in the study prefer men who they knew were taken, but also listeners who called up the radio show also said they were more attracted to men who were taken.
So basically the general reasoning for this preference is that if a guy is taken and is in a commited relationship... the girls will think 'wow, this other girl has kept him this long, he must be a great catch.' Now I guess I can understand this from a girl's point of view, in that they don't want a guy who sleeps with them, and then buggers off to other pastures... but lets just say a girl is attracted to a guy in a relationship, and then the guy leaves his current gf to be with the other girl.... would that girl really want to get into a relationship with that guy? Seems kind of retarded to me... if a guy would leave their gf to be with another girl, I wouldn't like her chances at having a decent future with him.
So I don't really see the point in trying to poach a taken guy. I don't think its uncommon for girls to complain "all the good men are taken"... this is hardly true. Sure there are probably a lot of jerks out there, but the same can be said from a guy's point of view about girls... I know I certainly have had my fair share of ridiculous girls, as have many of my friends...
So I guess my point is, some girls should probably realise the flaws in some of their ways of thinking...
Anyway thats my rant for the day... maybe more to come later!
Not only did the women in the study prefer men who they knew were taken, but also listeners who called up the radio show also said they were more attracted to men who were taken.
So basically the general reasoning for this preference is that if a guy is taken and is in a commited relationship... the girls will think 'wow, this other girl has kept him this long, he must be a great catch.' Now I guess I can understand this from a girl's point of view, in that they don't want a guy who sleeps with them, and then buggers off to other pastures... but lets just say a girl is attracted to a guy in a relationship, and then the guy leaves his current gf to be with the other girl.... would that girl really want to get into a relationship with that guy? Seems kind of retarded to me... if a guy would leave their gf to be with another girl, I wouldn't like her chances at having a decent future with him.
So I don't really see the point in trying to poach a taken guy. I don't think its uncommon for girls to complain "all the good men are taken"... this is hardly true. Sure there are probably a lot of jerks out there, but the same can be said from a guy's point of view about girls... I know I certainly have had my fair share of ridiculous girls, as have many of my friends...
So I guess my point is, some girls should probably realise the flaws in some of their ways of thinking...
Anyway thats my rant for the day... maybe more to come later!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)