And like any other inequality in power such as the difference between classes of nobles and classes of peasants, there will be abuses. And if the nobles don’t hold their own to account, those abuses will escalate in situations where power is too unequal. Humans cannot avoid abusing those underneath them. Only a slim percentage of humans have ever reached the qualifications for leadership and standing above others.

If law was a simpler matter that people could learn to read and understand for themselves, it wouldn’t need interpreters or priests to do it for them. Thus it becomes much better to avoid the legal system, since it’s like Somalia’s waters. There’s a high chance of piracy and unless you have firepower in political or legal influence, it’s difficult to beat back so many enemies.

If they were ever beaten back, people would find a different way to con the system, but if they are still looting whomever they wish, things continue given human nature.

Without lawyers making money off of trials, most of the problems would go away, since writing more ambiguous and more corrupt laws wouldn’t be as profitable.

To the extent to which you can judge, do these legal problems stem from the *letter* of the law – from how the law is actually worded – or from its uneven *application*? I do not quite understand whether you think

(i) that the LAWS THEMSELVES are a problem due to a written bias against men (and if so, can you point out to those current laws worded in such a fashion as to make them necessarily and inherently different for men and women, i.e. not worded in the so-called “gender-neutral” way, with men and women having different legal stands in different contexts of the said laws) – in this case, it would not be that the laws in their entirety are crazy, but specifically in those aspects as concerning men and not in those concerning women;

(ii) that the LAWS THEMSELVES are a problem because they are crazy in their ENTIRETY – worded in such a fashion so as to be equally applicable to men and women alike and to potentially affect women in the same ways as men – but you have a problem with them because *so it happens* (i.e. it is not a necessity stemming FROM the laws, but an accident) that in practice more men are negatively affected due to other variables (e.g. more men being higher earners, and laws being worded *against higher earners*, not against men QUA men), but the POTENTIAL for analogous effects exists for women, too, in the very law – and you would EQUALLY have a problem with that if it started affecting women in the same contexts as men;

(iii) that the laws themselves are reasonably well-written, but that their *application* is demonstrably biased the way it can be reasonably excluded that the application is uneven based on parameters other than sex (e.g. men being judged more strictly for structurally analogous crimes SPECIFICALLY QUA MEN, and NOT, for example, because those structurally analogous crimes were committed in ways to bring about more objective damage, so while the law would classify it as the “same” abstract offense, there would still be an objective difference of degree which plays a part in the sentencing disparity) – in which case you do not have a complaint against the letter of the law at all, only against its uneven application which would presumably spare women and be more stringent with men.

I am sorry to be pedantic, but I think these are important distinctions so I would like to know where exactly you stand.

Another question: how do you define false allegations? I recently realized that this term is being tossed around as irresponsibly as some other terms, so when you speak of false allegations I would like to know whether you speak:

(i) ONLY of allegations the *positive factual falsity* of which has been PROVEN by counter-evidence (NOT a “he said, she said” case whether neither guilt NOR innoncence can be ascertained – the fact alone that no guilt can be ascertained IS NOT an automatic manifestation of the falsity of the accusation itself), and you apply the term ONLY to cases in which a formal complaint to the state authorities has been raised against a specific person (which eliminates the “Jackie” case from the sample – on two grounds);

(ii) Anything else – in which case, what is your definition?

So when you talk of false accusers not getting punished, do you talk of (i) not getting punished? And if so, IS THERE a potential to punish them, in the law, if the ACCUSED, whose innocence has now been proven, files a complaint against them – if so, you are essentially complaining *against the falsely accused who are not using this already existing option*, not against the law itself; if not, what kind of modifications of the law do you propose to allow for that option (or, perhaps, you would like to see an *automatic* process against the accuser if the falsity has been proven? but would that not be inconsistent with the principle that only the directly injured party should complain, as well as reserve the right not to, for whatever reason they wish?)?

in my case, i lost my bright career, family, and what would have been a good future with a home and children. i lost my reputation, and i still have not recovered 25 years later. the person that did it? they have a family, a home, and more… yeah, they served two years in club fed for taking my son and robbing a bank, but hey, we all make mistakes…

(something venderleun with his perfect life would not understand when something gets near and dear to someones life. perhaps he should join the anti charlie muslims and fight for controlled speech since he cant handle free speech protecting that which he does not like!!!!!!)

ultimately, thanks to that person, i learned i have no rights, and am now just waiting to die as i have no future i can do anything about… after all, a background check will come up with the murder that never was, and so, ruins my changing places. and the current place says for the rest of my life i will never have a raise or promotion given i am a white male not a woman or of color.

i was one of the founders of MGTOW back when it was just bs… recently someone i know from that, committed suicide given the unequal treatment that is the norm in things like this… its easier to ruin the life and go on, than it is to be fair with the ‘victim’. now the two kids have no father, and mom has no one to keep taking to court for more and more money…

in my case, i was bankrupted, made homeless, lost my career job out college, lost my home, lost my son, lost my future… i lost most of my friends, most of my family decided not to bother with the murderer…

no punishment for her or her friends helping her…

If I’m wasting my time, you should have told me so before you asked me that question, you know. People who don’t want answers really don’t deserve them for free, especially on the net.

Is that a comment about what I wrote?

What do you think union means then and how do you reconcile the original labor unions with government unions and white collar unions?

Besides, a lawyer protesting the different meaning of words? You may practice law, but do you even understand what lawyers do for a living now a days?

1) UVA’s Phi Psi fraternity was falsely accused of a heinous gang-rape in a spectacularly inept and biased Rolling Stone article that spread the libel nationwide.

2) Phi Psi was vilified at UVA, subjected to abuse, its house spray-painted and bricks thrown through the windows. Frat members were forced to stay at hotels because of the obvious dangers.

4) The UVA president piled on, inflicting group punishment on ALL fraternities by suspending all “Greek” activities.

5) After the incident was shown to be hoax and Phi Psi was exonerated by police, the fraternity did NOT complain and assert its rights; it tamely accepted the defamation, vandalism and attack. Then it timidly kowtowed to the demands of political correctness, spouting the PC party line as if afflicted with Stockholm Syndrome.

6) Did the UVA president or administration apologize or admit wrongdoing? Of course not. With the supreme chutzpah of an absolute dictator, they used an acknowledged hoax as the springboard to demand stricter obedience to sex-related PC, insisting that frats sign a “new agreement”–like some kind of PC loyalty oath.

There you have it, a fine example of political correctness at work.

No, there are no murderous purges or gulags of death, but there are PC show trials. Those who defy the imperious, autocratic commissars of political correctness are subjected to character assassination, mob abuse, violence, banishment, job loss and kangaroo trials that can result in jail time, fines and other serious punishments.

Overflowing with smug, self-righteous arrogance based on working from the safety of entrenched, censored bulwarks in academic (and other) institutions combined with the reliable, enthusiastic backing of the MSM, these True Believers are eager to push political correctness to ever-greater levels of propaganda, intimidation, coercion and injustice.

Maybe “Stalinism without Stalin” isn’t so overheated after all.