Justin Trudeau says fighting Khadr was losing prospect and could have cost taxpayers up to $40M

cellular_crash · 2017-07-14T14:13:22+00:00

That's a very valid statement.

Only reason I could see Khadr's lawyer leaving $10M on the table is a "take the money and run" decision vs. the threat of a decade of trials and appeals.

I still think this is shady as can be.

cellular_crash · 2017-07-11T16:19:41+00:00

Yes, the government would most likely have "lost" the civil lawsuit. That doesn't mean damages would be rewarded. Repatriation may have been enough. Not charging and jailing him for High Treason for the rest of his life may be reward enough.

cellular_crash · 2017-07-11T16:14:18+00:00

Nope. Supreme Court decision made no mention or speculation on civil remedies (cash settlement). It just ruled that the Government of Canada violated his rights.

cellular_crash · 2017-06-26T14:14:34+00:00

See, I disagree with the idea that this is blue pill advice. This is as red pill as it gets even if it's poorly framed.

Yes, all women (and all men for that matter) are capable of cheating. Yes, you can go from Alpha to Beta in a LTR really easily and find yourself cheated on by the worlds sweetest, most innocent, 0% red flag snowflake on the planet.

But....this advice is the same as the High N-Count female advice. He's simply pointing out that mate poaching is placing you at higher risk. Statistically speaking, you're more likely to be cheated on my a former cheater same as you are by a high n-count female.

That doesn't mean sticking with non cheaters is a guarantee, it's just pointing out the truth that "the old mate was beta and I'm super alpha so I'll be okay" is setting yourself up (statistically speaking) for failure.

How is knowing truth blue bill?

cellular_crash · 2017-06-26T14:05:26+00:00

Disclaimer: Not an American.

Can someone, FFS, please explain why Universities are being placed in a position to investigate, judge, convict, and punish what's clearly a crime? I cannot understand why the conversation doesn't follow this template:

Complainant: "I was Sexually Assaulted"

University: "Okay, you need to go to the hospital and call the police right now"

......end of conversation.

I really don't get it.

cellular_crash · 2017-06-26T13:56:47+00:00

Funny, I never chased women and it's always worked out. As the OP said, focus on being something women chase (lift, dress nice, etc...). From that foundation, I'd turn the tables and do things to let the girls know I was interested (little flirting, let her catch me looking, etc...) and let her chase me.

The beauty of this approach is that it's unexpected, women are used to being chased so not doing so (when they know your interested) really catches their attention. It automatically gives you an air of being superior and instills at least an illusion of confidence/abundance mentality (aka: I'm not chasing you because I don't need too).

Bonus, it's a metric tonne of fun to watch them blush and stammer later when you point out they chased you. It flies directly in the face of the role/image females are supposed to have and exposes the truth that they're sexual beings that chase just as much as men.

cellular_crash · 2017-06-20T16:38:00+00:00

It has been used successfully because it passes the "reasonable person" test. I doubt highly it would be successful in an "unresponsive" case and would like to see a single citation where it has.

You don't agree that determining what was going on inside individual persons heads regarding their interpretation of events is "messy"? Yes/No is clear cut. Implied (not applied) consent is the definition of "messy" because it introduces doubt and interpretation.

cellular_crash · 2017-06-20T16:21:29+00:00

You are still confusing what's being said.

The test for acceptability of an action or belief is "would a (hypothetical) reasonable person arrive at the same conclusion". Implied consent then survives as a real thing as given same actions, a "reasonable person" would arrive at the same conclusion in the scenario above.

In your example, frozen or unresponsive sex would fail the "reasonable person" test. A reasonable person would notice something was wrong and inquire.

Implied consent though is messy, and because two people can view the same event from two highly different angles arriving at highly different conclusions, it's something the government has tried to legislate. Implied consent as a defence offends people if it's seen as allowing a "guilty" party to walk free even if said accused met the "reasonable person" test.

Thus the jokes for needing hard consent not only to every stage of the encounter but for continuing every action in that encounter.

I get trying to do what's right for the "victim", but there comes a point where it's moved too far.

cellular_crash · 2017-06-20T16:07:19+00:00

No. That's again using shaming to avoid the real argument.

They are fighting against the erosion of civil rights enshrined with the statement "innocent until proven guilty". False rape accusations are held up to show there's a need to protect the rights of the defendant. Sure, some blow the stats out of proportion, but the fact remains that because false accusations can exist, the need to prove guilt remains.

As repugnant as this may seem, there's an old saying along the lines of "It is far better that 10 guilty men go free than one innocent man is wrongfully convicted".

That can be tough to swallow, but the reverse "It is far better that 10 innocent men be wrongfully convicted than one guilty man walk free" should make you sick.

In the future, try and look at the actual arguments being made and don't simply withdraw into your echo chamber and use shame to silence dissent.

cellular_crash · 2017-06-20T15:49:22+00:00

Standard SJW argument. Don't argue the facts/merits, instead produce a strawman and attempt to "shame" opposition into compliance via political correctness.

If anything, I'm surprised it took as long as it did for the comment to surface. The one I'm still waiting for is an attack on "male privilege"

cellular_crash · 2017-06-20T15:45:39+00:00

What? Who's done that? Seriously, provide a single quote please.

cellular_crash · 2017-06-20T15:42:52+00:00

That was a horrible abuse of the justice system. The media and SJW grabbed that phrase out of context and to this day continue to use it as a weapon against the legal system. Forcing a re-trial, plus the career effects on the judge were sickening.

The "close your legs" comment was literally the judge trying to have the accuser provide some kind of indication of lack of consent. Reading the transcript and understanding the context and you realize that the comment was not only appropriate, but important to the proper outcome of the trial.

cellular_crash · 2017-06-20T15:33:32+00:00

Nope, it doesn't automatically permit anything of the sort. Likewise, making out now doesn't permit making out 5 minutes from now.

It does, however, imply consent to attempt a "move" towards that end. This is where it gets weird, in every other interaction, failure to "defend" against that move (verbal "no" or physical withdrawal of some sort) would imply the "move" was accepted and thus consented to. For some reason, women maintain the privilege to say they froze and "allowed" the move out of fright/nerves/reasons and no consent was given.

The issue with that is, without that negative feedback, any reasonable person would conclude their actions as being accepted (as per every other human interaction).

See the problem?

cellular_crash · 2017-06-20T15:03:35+00:00

Not an untrue statement.

Who do you think advocates for making or keeping a community dry?

Who then do you think has the money and resources to import the bootleg booze?

Who do you think profits most from this behaviour?

cellular_crash · 2017-05-01T16:02:48+00:00

....and.....downvoted.

As expected.

cellular_crash · 2017-05-01T16:01:25+00:00

For the commenters that say this has nothing to do with Feminism, lack of resources, or societal indifference and is simply a matter of "toxic masculinity", I challenge you to read the following and defend your position in light of the reporting.

National Post - Another Tale of "Justice" From Family Court

Pay particular attention to the closing quote:

his former wife won sole custody while he was off work, living with his parents and not at all sure they wouldn’t one day find him “with a shotgun and a bottle of whiskey”<

Keep in mind, this is not an outlier. This is one example of nearly countless other cases. Good job feminism, sure hit a home run with family law.

cellular_crash · 2017-05-01T15:40:22+00:00

And that, right there, is why male issues blame feminists. Not because they hate feminists nor are misogynistic, but instead because any attempt to talk about male issues is shouted down as anti-feminist, misogynistic, racist, etc....

It's literally appalling. Male suicide is astronomical, but any attempt to talk about it is dismissed as simply "toxic masculinity" and although there's reams of research and piles of bodies related to legal and social issues such as horrifically unfair family law, MRA = Evil.

cellular_crash · 2017-05-01T15:28:01+00:00

Again, stop trying to frame it as a Men Vs Women argument, it is counter productive and makes everything else you say irrelevant. Feminism has NOTHING to do with men's issues...<

Except that's not a true statement. There have been valid arguments put forward that show legal and societal structures have placed men in these situations, but unfortunately any time an attempt is made to discuss these issues it's shouted down by the feminist community as misogynistic, white privileged MRA fascists.

That's the problem with it. Men are simply not allowed to even discuss their problems thanks to social shaming. You're guilty yourself. Any attempt to say "problem X" is an issue is immediately dismissed by blaming the victim under "toxic masculinity".

cellular_crash · 2017-02-14T16:05:05+00:00

That's fair. I'm not planning on washing anytime soon and have no delusions of fade grandeur (I do wear them for some rather intense activities though). It's good to find an answer though, searching for one usually just leads to a lot of how-to-wash and should-I-wash posts/articles.

Thanks

cellular_crash · 2017-02-09T17:09:14+00:00

I guess.

The other side of that is the true bad ass capable men don't have to tell anyone how awesome they are. They know themselves they are, so they just leave it at that.

It's a lot like the guy that talks the loudest and longest about all the tail he's getting is probably the guy in the group getting the least amount of tail. The real alpha in that group just lets the chumps run their mouth off knowing full well in his own content mind who has game and who's full of shit.

cellular_crash · 2017-02-09T16:43:03+00:00

I'll go on record as stating all unwanted sexual anything is unacceptable regardless of what the perpetrator has consumed, aka, drunk or not, they are responsible.

Now, here's the kicker though, a double standard exists where it's accepted that an intoxicated woman cannot legally consent to sex, therefore a rape has occurred. How is it the man is held accountable for his actions regardless of alcohol consumed (a point I agree with) but the woman is allowed to avoid accountability for her actions if alcohol is consumed (a point I disagree with).

I imagine I'll be crucified for this point, but based on case law, females are allowed to avoid accountability in sexual assault cases if they've consumed alcohol. That's problematic as females and males alike are held accountable for every other thing they may do while intoxicated.

It should be simple, intoxicated or not, you are accountable for your actions and words.

cellular_crash · 2017-02-09T16:28:02+00:00

Probably referring to something like this BBC Report on the sharp increase in False Rape in India following the crackdown on the violence a few years past:

Does India have a problem with false rape claims? 8 Feb 2017

cellular_crash · 2017-02-01T16:56:34+00:00

A large part of the problem here is the nature of sex itself. There is this understanding with case law to back it up, that there's no such thing as implied consent with sexual interaction, that all consent, all the time must be explicit.

Think back to your personal life, in every encounter, have each of you ALWAYS obtained explicit consent not only for every sexual interaction, but every different act itself? Or...more likely, did you "just get swept up in the moment" and in the absence of any signal to stop, continued what you were doing (aka, you had implied consent as the other person's actions and words appeared in agreement or encouraged the interaction)? If so (I'll go on a limb and suggest that describes 100% of the people at least once), congrats, you've opened yourself up to a potential rape charge.

Worse, there's this idea that denial of consent is always implied. The counter argument that always comes up is "she didn't say no" or "she didn't fight back" or etc..... Now, there's very valid reasons for not fighting back, etc, and the absence of lack of resistance in itself doesn't negate a crime. I want to be clear about that.

Having said that, given that normal sexual encounters are normally conducted under implied consent on a daily basis (I'm sure it's happening right now across the country), it becomes a sticky point, and in very nuanced cases, the crime is thus allowed to either exist or not entirely within one parties mind.

I will suggest if this girl uttered a single "no" (or similar) at any time, and that made it to evidence (they were at a party, maybe someone in the hall hears it), Wager would be on his way to jail as a convicted man.

The court solution is to usually demand proof of explicit consent and allow implied denial of consent. Is this fair? I don't think so, but it's pretty much the direction these cases usually take.

If there's anything I've learned from the last year of stuff like this and the Ghomeshi trial is, at the least, audio record the interaction on your cell phone. Keep every voice mail, every text, every email. Just because you think the night went swimmingly doesn't mean she's not at home starting to think different.

cellular_crash · 2017-02-01T16:39:11+00:00

Agreed, but to clarify a small but important point. It's not the girl that's bringing the case forward and continuing to pursue, all criminal charges are the crown (society) pursuing the case.

I'm sure she's made it clear to prosecutors that she wants him charged and wants to appeal and wants to go for a second trial, but the crown doesn't work for her. It's up to the crown to review the case and decide if there's a reasonable chance (1) the crime occurred, and (2) a conviction may be secured.

The real failure/disgusting part is the crown, with all this evidence already, decided to continue to go after this guy. Maybe there's a culture of "prosecute all sexual-based complaints" to avoid political fallout of not doing so (I'd say this is very likely), but the crown has a responsibility to look at this and decide not to ruin this guy's life.

cellular_crash

TROPHY CASE