Another country song about a woman wronged. Her man shook her and slapped her. So she's got her gun now and she's gonna take him down when he walks in the door.
The Woman as Victim can sing about intended murder of Man as Abuser and that's just fine. After all, what's the individual murder of a male compared a Crime Against Women?
Hey, in this Kali Yuga, if you don't want the Federal Government to 1) mandate 2) free* contraception 3) for females, then you're making a War Against Women.
*Free, as in, paid for by someone else.
If he wants a fight well now he's got one
And he ain't seen me crazy yet
His fist is big but my gun's bigger
He'll find out when I pull the trigger
I'm going to show him what a little girl's made of
Gunpowder and lead
And he ain't seen me crazy yet
His fist is big but my gun's bigger
He'll find out when I pull the trigger
I'm going to show him what a little girl's made of
Gunpowder and lead
The Woman as Victim can sing about intended murder of Man as Abuser and that's just fine. After all, what's the individual murder of a male compared a Crime Against Women?
Hey, in this Kali Yuga, if you don't want the Federal Government to 1) mandate 2) free* contraception 3) for females, then you're making a War Against Women.
*Free, as in, paid for by someone else.
5 comments:
Without referring to any "stand your ground" statutes, and maybe in any event prior to the legislation of such statutes, courts have recognized a woman's right to not only stand her ground with deadly force vs an abusive boyfriend or husband, but even to set about killing him in a premeditated way. ...
Along this line, we must consider that the Castle Doctrine doesn't apply to conservative blogs on grounds that a blog is not one's home. Prsumably, then, Ex Cathedra has a Duty to Retreat before progressive or non-hate speakers, and by not retreating before progressive speakers, Ex Cathedra and all conservatives are extra-judicially convicted of hate speech.
In the long long oppressive boring years before our own time, the courts did not see in the First Amendment a right to freedom of obscene speech. Since hatred or conservatism is obscenity according to desublimators, the courts should see no right to freedom for conservative speech even within the privacy of one's own blog.
P.S. No desublimated selfs would happen except by the generative action of desublimator Selfs. (Nietzsche, BGE ¶¶6, 75).
... Well, I gotta go cash my recent dividend cheque from my investments in Swedish, Canadian, and South African armaments manufacture and export industries. (I do quite well by corporations that supply the Palestinians with explosives and rocket parts -- right under the noses of the supposedly "world dominating" Elders of ZIon!)
Re: »We want an arrest: Shot in Chest!« Chest the location of heart (js3820 LB) or thumos (CSL, Abolition of Man, ch. 1 "Men Outside Chests").
Lucky for vengeance re hatred, though. Because »If it doesn't fight, you can't requite!« ... BTW Ge orge [nt3709] Carpenter was arrested, book'd, had mug shot taken in orange, evidently, to judge by the photo of him that convicted him of hatred. ...
Another possibility for expiation is a wrongful death suit for civil damages by TM's family. A properly selected jury could feel quite sympathetic and garnishee for TM's family some sizeable % of everything GZ ever earns in perpetuity. ... An official governmental finding of "wrongful death" by "preponderance of evidence" plus sympatheticness could release the passions cathected to GZ. And the basic system could continue. ... This would take time, however, and the person penalized in a wrongful death suit isn't arrested, gaol'd, etc.
I'm not sure if the 'stand your ground' statutes cause the difficulty. It's true that by the duty to retreat the Sovereign by law obliges the citizen to behave as a 'slave' in Hegel's terms vis-a-vis any master who is apparently willing to risk violent death outside the law. The Sovereign would be the Master, and for the sake of protection from violent death the citizens are to alienate their spiritedness to the Sovereign's police powers.
But juries tend not to find a citizen guilty of standing his ground vs an aggressor; that is, they don't like to say that he ought to behave as an abject Hegelian "slave" vis-a-vis any Hegelian criminal. ... Not that any sort of criminality has been establish'd for TM. Just as GZ's being able to "walk unassisted" into a police station proves that he hadn't had his nose broken. ... So a jury trial for GZ that return'd a verdict of "not guilty" beyond a reasonable doubt of murder wouldn't release the passionate frustrations cathected to GZ. Thus a civil trial for wrongful death merely by "preponderance of evidence" might be the better long-term avenue for judicial therapy in this situation.
... If even this tough new federal D.A. has to conclude that GZ was wounded according to reports by medical personnel, and that in view of Florida's 'stand your ground' statute she can't reasonably ask a grand jury to indict GZ even though she really really wants to see him try'd and convicted of murder, this won't release the cathected frustrations.
As we may see from Hobbes' account of this sort of thing, the Sovereign's judicial power is thwarted when citizens encounter each other in a violent confrontation outside the purview of evidence. That is, when two citizens confront each other in the 'state of nature' outside the law the Sovereign can't expect the aggress'd upon citizen, or rather man, since outside civil society one isn't a citizen except in the flimsy utopian sense of 'citizen of the global community' and so on. The state doesn't occur in these encounters, and the natural law obliges even low-class white persons to preserve their life. The global community, in a utopian preeening that all global communitarians are nonviolent masters who readily welcome violent death can say that every person ought to prefer to die rather than to kill, but even Thomas More's Utopia is not without an enforcer system.
In any case, if two persons meet each other in a desolate area urban or wilderness, and one man dies and the other later tells authorities he kill'd only in self-defense and after trying to retreat to fulfil his duty to behave as a Hegelian slave, the law may investigate but if there is no evidence that the killer's account is false, the killer is not arrested and try'd. It's true that in such cases the law permits those who might be guilty of murder to escape punishment, but this is what is required in an 'innocent until proved guilty' legal system. Which we don't like when this means who we think obvious criminals or who obvious 'haters' are not punish'd.
Lockeanly, the thing to do is to moralize (socialize enculturate) men so that there aren't 'criminal classes' according to statistics and media perceptions that are then 'stereotyped' into implicit guilt of dangerousness for all persons of that population group. But this sound advice from the repressive bourgeois Locke who promotes impatience with "the idle and quarrelsome" (no matter how valuable such persons may be to media dramas, or indeed possibly to neighborhood watch committees) has been dismiss'd in the desublimation aiôn.
So we have the present situation with indignations and frustrations all over the place, and we look to the legal system to expiate and satisfy these passions. But our legal system isn't yet one of tribal "lex" talionis like that of the feuding clans of the Ozarks and Appalachians with little or no concern with evidence and due process: our legal system is a work of repressive bourgeois sublimation.
It was supplemented by a religion of salvific suffering. Which is a religion of repressive sublimation. Do we want these systems of civilizational restraint any more? ... Sublimation enter'd Egypt via a Cushite or Ethiopian Pharaoh, says Herodotus. It would be a shame in view of the Cushite identity of the first victim if this presentday drama were a tipping point against sublimation in law.
Post a Comment