|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
However children's commissioner advocate Trish Grant said the office was contacted by the family of a 12-year-old Napier boy in 2000 who the IRD wanted to pay child support to an 18-year-old woman.
Advocates had met with the IRD and the boy's extremely upset family, but the boy was made to pay.
The office "absolutely maintained" that children had the right to be financially supported by their parents, whether the parents played a part in their life or not, Ms Grant said.
But the personal circumstances of very young parents should also be considered.
"The situation might preclude them from getting involved in studies, for example . . . They have a right to a childhood and adolescence, and they should be held accountable. But to what degree needs to be based on what their future path might be," she said.
"They should be held accountable"
Jesus fucking christ.
I guess women are never accountable, even when they're the adult in a child-molesting situation, are they? Too bad this lack of responsibility doesn't prelude them from getting jobs as children's commissioners.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday May 02, @07:38PM EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
This term is totally Orwellian, as the article shows. "Child support" is really a punitive penis tax. Of course it applies to a twelve-year old with a penis. That a male is unmarried, on a one-night stand, or raped doesn't matter for a punitive penis tax. That a female can, without notifying the biological father, have an abortion, give birth, abandon the child, or put it up for adoption doesn't have anything to do with a punitive penis tax. The point is to punish a penis for ejaculating. Didn't this boy learn that in sex ed class?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"The point is to punish a penis for ejaculating. Didn't this boy learn that in sex ed class?"
Probably with the lecture which doesn't teach that masturbation is a normal bodily function, and which likewise gives out tampons to girls like candy but won't furnish male protection in the form of a few condoms for male pubescent discharge, but simply shames them by calling it "wetting the bed" or equivalent, while likewise denying that it's a sexual event in any way.
Let's face it, the world is full of puritanical, self-hating males on a guilt-trip who want to punish others for their own "sins" since their fall from "purity" at their mother's rejection of their manhood, and any male old enough to father a child is victim of their wrath.
Here, also, it seems that women--even "sexually liberated" women-- are at the bottom of it in their disgust at the male gender-- even with their own children-- which leads to this type of self-imposed guilt and shame while menstruation and motherhood are some type of "rights of passage" and sainthood respectively.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday May 02, @08:14PM EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
It's outrageous that New Zealand law forces victimized boys to reward women who exploit them as mere breeding chattel.
These boys' family planning has been irreparably damaged, they may not be able to afford an education and they'll have to endure the stigma of unwed fatherhood.
It's unfair, unjust and utterly repugnant.
I'm appalled and New Zealanders should be ashamed.
For what it's worth, American law also forces victimized boys to reward their molesters.
LEGALIZE CHOICE FOR MEN!
Thanks,
Kingsley G. Morse Jr.
Reproductive Rights Chairman
National Center for Men
Protect Voluntary Fatherhood
http://www.choiceformen.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"These boys' family planning has been irreparably damaged, they may not be able to afford an education and they'll have to endure the stigma of unwed fatherhood."
Don't forget about the mental trauma this imposes on the boys by being forced into fatherhood while still children themselves; kids have a hard enough time at that age dealing with guilt and confusion over the very concepts of sexuality and parenthood, and their having simple POTENTIAL for such, so one can imagine the shock-disturbance of actually being duped into both.
With in mind, the notion of the boy being punished for this is simply beyond assinine, and
is just out-of-control feminism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday May 02, @08:45PM EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
Here are two separate points:
(1)If so many young boys have children, imagine how many more are being raped without getting their rapists pregnant. It is time to acknowledge that women can be paedophiles and sexual predators and should be treated the same way as male criminals.
(2)If a woman is willing to have sex with a 12 year old boy (he may have been 11 during intercourse, if he now has a child), then she is obviously not fit to be a mother. She should be paying child support to the boy's parents who should take the child. Or, if the parents choose, the child should be put up for adoption.
This is a flagrant human rights violation, and anyone must admit that something should be done.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday May 03, @01:42AM EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
There are no words in my vocabulary to describe my feelings about this.
What will it take, Civil war...?
-Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What more evidence do we need that women not only want unilateral control over reproductive rights, but not responsibilities, which are assigned to men and enforced by the state (through its "male" hierarchical law enforcement apparatus, with what feminists hypocritically consider an acceptable use of force), not only do they want control over the knowledge of whose DNA was used, they want women paedophiles to go unpunished, and they want male statutory rape victims to pay child support. Moreover--this is crucial--they want the strong arm of the law to enforce their wishes. So much for the illusion that women never condone the use of force. When the power of the state is used to implement the feminist agenda of privilege at soneone else's expense, the feminist criticism of "male hierarchical" power structures is unapologetically revoked.
So far, no feminist has challenged me on this glaringly obvious hole in feminist thinking. Child support isn't nurtured from wrongfully named fathers or 12 year-old statutory rape victims, or otherwise obtained by some feminine process of consensus. This is a further example of the thesis that feminists use force--the same old "male" hierarchical power structures--against men and boys to deprive men and boys of their rights. This is what the law is doing to boys; it is precisely what feminists want; in my view, those who condone paedophilia if committed by women, and those who would use the strong arm of the law to force the victim of a woman paedophile to pay child support are morally no better than paedophiles themselves.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What more evidence do we need that women not only want unilateral control over reproductive rights, but not responsibilities, which are assigned to men and enforced by the state (through its "male" hierarchical law enforcement apparatus, with what feminists hypocritically consider an acceptable use of force).
So much for the illusion that women never condone the use of force.
You hit the nail right on the head!
I'll take it a step further: Keep in mind that the use of force in this instance is the use of physical force. That's a vitally important point.
All political power ultimately comes from barrel of a gun. We have a tendency these days to think that political power comes from groups, votes, democracy, whatever..... But in reality, none of those things amounts to anything without the threat of force to back it up. Law is only law if it can be enforced. So the question to ask is whether or not any particular law is just. (i.e. if it's moral) If it's unjust, or immoral, then the State becomes at best nothing more than a tyrannical bully.
That's why law absolutely must have a firm moral foundation.
Does anybody here remember the debate I had with Lorianne several months ago regarding morality and law? She went out of her way to avoid the issue of morality and law. To her, morality was irrelevant. Another example: I was in a debate with a socialist about a year or two ago regarding the issue of taxes and government waste. He felt that because it is simply the nature of government to waste money, it's OK to raise taxes even if that same government wastes millions, or even billions, of dollars on useless programs. It doesn't matter that it's blatantly immoral to force someone to pay more even when you're wasting what you already get from him. In the words of that socialist "I don't feel that government has a moral obligation. It's only obligation is to service the people." (That's an exact quote.)
And there you have it. That's the mindset of what we're dealing with. Morality is something that applies only to the individual, not the government. (Or the "collective".) Government can do whatever it pleases, as long as it's for the good of somebody else.
"The good of others is a magic formula that transforms anything into gold." -Atlas Shrugged.
And people wonder why I'm such a big fan of Ayn Rand.
"Existence exists. A is A." -Ayn Rand
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All political power ultimately comes from barrel of a gun. We have a tendency these days to think that political power comes from groups, votes, democracy, whatever..... But in reality, none of those things amounts to anything without the threat of force to back it up. Law is only law if it can be enforced. So the question to ask is whether or not any particular law is just. (i.e. if it's moral) If it's unjust, or immoral, then the State becomes at best nothing more than a tyrannical bully.
Considering the laws as they are written and enforced, it is fair and appropriate to consider feminists tyrranical bullies. Feminists condone and encourage the use of force--applied by law enforcement--to carry out their anti-male, feminist agenda in several areas of concern to men's activists, such as paternity fraud, disproportionately lenient treatment of female criminals, statutory rape by women of boys who may be required to pay child support if the rapist becomes pregnant, and domestic violence.
My brother, a police officer, has expressed frustration on account of biased police practices regarding domestic violence. An officer who has been attacked by his domestic partner cannot defend himself and he cannot rely on his fellow officers or on the system to protect him.
The NCFM in Los Angeles asked police officers to anonymously post to the NCFM-LA website their experiences enforcing domestic violence laws--laws and legal procedures feminists helped to create. They spoke about how biased the procedures are. The police know first hand that the use of force to undertake an anti-male feminist political agenda is actively encouraged.
So much for the idea that women are always victims and men are always perpetrators. Feminists help write the laws, which are enforced; feminists condone and encourage the use of force to carry out an anti-male feminist agenda. Ask the police.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Feminists condone and encourage the use of force--applied by law enforcement--to carry out their anti-male, feminist agenda in several areas of concern to men's activists, such as paternity fraud, disproportionately lenient treatment of female criminals
This, again, is the entirety of feminism, i.e. feminists seeking to use force of law to intrude into and govern every aspect of men's lives, from private relations with women to free association with each other in country clubs.
They know that women are easily duped-- particularly when their benefit is used as bait, however unfair due to women's inborn moral relativism and selfishness-- but that men are not so easily gulled, and so require more constructive subjugation of their freedoms in order to gradually erode them without effective resistance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All political power ultimately comes from barrel of a gun. We have a tendency these days to think that political power comes from groups, votes, democracy, whatever..... But in reality, none of those things amounts to anything without the threat of force to back it up. Law is only law if it can be enforced. So the question to ask is whether or not any particular law is just. (i.e. if it's moral) If it's unjust, or immoral, then the State becomes at best nothing more than a tyrannical bully.
In America, laws are required to be necessary to secure individual inalienable rights, and derive their just powers by that reason and that reason alone, with "democracy" being defined as government by consent of the governed, and not tyranny of the majority. As Thomas Jefferson, who first wrote these sentiments into law, remarked in his 1801 First Inaugural,
"During the contest of opinion through which we have passed, the animation of discussion and of exertions has sometimes worn an aspect which might impose on strangers unused to think freely and to speak and to write what they think; but this being now decided by the voice of the nation, announced according to the rules of the constitution, all will, of course, arrange themselves under the will of the law, and unite in common efforts for the common good. All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate which would be oppression."
As such, this law which arbitrarily violates the rights of the minority by simple rule of law is nothing less than an act of outright tyranny.
"The good of others is a magic formula that transforms anything into gold." -Atlas Shrugged.
And people wonder why I'm such a big fan of Ayn Rand
Because you don't know her for the pseudo-intellectual feminist that I do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And people wonder why I'm such a big fan of Ayn Rand
Because you don't know her for the pseudo-intellectual feminist that I do.
I'm not a fan of Ayn Rand either. Without wishing to indulge in discursive digressions, I don't see how axioms like "a=a" imply anything one way or the other about justice. For me, axioms have their uses within formal systems; it's hard to imagine anyone actually "believing" in them, but I suppose people do.
A critique of certain aspects of feminism--the aspects that influence public policy to the detriment of men--is possible without having to posit a philosophy such as Ayn Rand's objectivism. Hardly any philosophical framework is needed to support arguments in favor of men's rights, actually. I hope I've lifted a tremendous philosophical burden from some readers...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hardly any philosophical framework is needed to support arguments in favor of men's rights, actually.
In a certain sense, I might agree with you. But you really made my point for me.
The average Joe doesn't need to have a deep understanding of philosophy to make an argument for men's rights, but at the heart of it, it is rooted in philosophy whether one realizes it or not. Even if the individual has no interest in philosophy, the government should be! Philosophy is the driving force behind any civilization. It is a society's concept of "right" and "wrong" which formulates its laws.
I'm certainly not a philosopher. Heck, sometimes I have to read and re-read Rands words over and over to grasp the full meaning. But the point that she made was that government must base its decisions on a firm foundation of right vs. wrong, good vs. evil, moral vs. immoral. Laws should not be based on the majority's whim of the moment.
When men are forced to pay into programs which they cannot use themselves, it is patently immoral. (Battered women's shelters, for example.) When one standard is applied to one person, and another is applied to another person, it is immoral. (The treatment this female-pedophile received as opposed to that a male would receive, for example.)
The point is, when feminists have laws drafted which reward women and punish men, they're doing it based on their petty whims, not on sound reasoning and morality. To them, immoral laws are OK because their group benefits from them. (Hell, they won't even acknowledge that some of those laws are immoral!)
I apologize for going off on a philosophical tangent. I simply see the whole feminist fiasco as a means of evading reality and fairness, which ultimately is a philosophical issue.
"Existence exists. A is A." -Ayn Rand
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The average Joe doesn't need to have a deep understanding of philosophy to make an argument for men's rights, but at the heart of it, it is rooted in philosophy whether one realizes it or not. Even if the individual has no interest in philosophy, the government should be! Philosophy is the driving force behind any civilization. It is a society's concept of "right" and "wrong" which formulates its laws.
Ok--I expected this reply, since I'm sufficiently familiar with objectivism and objectivists to know that this is the next move. My position is that perhaps philosophy is the "driving force" underlying or "behind" any civilization, whatever one means by "driving forces" (this point isn't usually clarified by objectivists, but one would imagine that its clarification would involve something sociologically substantive, in a statistical sense), and whatever one means by "civilization" however, that doesn't mean objectivism is the "underlying" philosophy.
In any case, thankfully, one can address issues of men's rights without first needing to ascertain to what extent "civilization" is "driven" by some underlying philosophy. This may seem hopelessly superficial to an objectivist, or for that matter to anyone who subscribes to more than a journalistic worldview; nevertheless, I remain unconvinced that an exploration of the putative underlying philosophical factors that drive civilization would be helpful, if only because the terms of any proposed investigation haven't been made precise enough to make any sociologically substantive claim one way or the other.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In any case, thankfully, one can address issues of men's rights without first needing to ascertain to what extent "civilization" is "driven" by some underlying philosophy. This may seem hopelessly superficial to an objectivist, or for that matter to anyone who subscribes to more than a journalistic worldview; nevertheless, I remain unconvinced that an exploration of the putative underlying philosophical factors that drive civilization would be helpful, if only because the terms of any proposed investigation haven't been made precise enough to make any sociologically substantive claim one way or the other.
This is true, since we are not addressing any issue of fundamental underlying metaphysics, but simply an application consistent logic regarding currently agreed-upon principles, with "objectivism" applying simply to consistency in reasoning rather than some type of ontological epistemology or discovery of core or "absolute" reasoning.
In this vein, we need look no further than the simple elements of requisite intent and reasonable forseeability, i.e. the
This "strict liabilty" bullshit disabuses itself from any such doctrine on the supposed basis that "the child didn't have a choice, it just has a right to support" and so all rights of the man go out the proverbial window.
Forgetting for the moment that this overturns the entire case for Roe v. Wade, this likewise holds the man responsible for the woman's intentions and forseeability in cases of clear negligence, and even in cases of deliberate fraud and deception, and even actual rape; this conflicts with the notion of a woman being a free and responsible person, but stems back to legal dogma in which women were legal chattel without suffrage.
Likweise, such simplisms likewise deny outrigh the "last clear chance" doctrine persuant to the attainment of such suffrage, which holds that the person with the last clear choice in a situation, i.e. abortion, is wholly responsible for the consequences in the event of wilful negligence to exercise such.
Naturally, persons suffering from double-X syndrome, which results in a missing "Y" chromosome responsible for the hormone essential to advanced cerebral development via hemispheric specialization, will tend to agree with such dogmatic charlatans due to the congenital "moral relativisms" created thereby, tending to rationalize such with the most absurd verbal gymnastics, but which the trained legal mind will recognize as a simple convolution-smokescreen.
Likewise, anyone with an ounce of reasoning-capability will realize that when one endorses the simple rule of law to justify a position, it's clear that we owe one Adolph Hitler a BIG apology for condemnation of his "crimes against humanity" when no such written law exists.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
napnip> The average Joe doesn't need to have a deep understanding of philosophy to make an argument for men's rights, but at
the heart of it, it is rooted in philosophy whether one realizes it or not. Even if the individual has no interest in philosophy,
the government should be! Philosophy is the driving force behind any civilization. It is a society's concept of "right" and
"wrong" which formulates its laws
I'm not in agreement. Most humans have a certain innate sense of fairness which is probably an evolved social faculty. Historically this precedes any philosophy and it is the violation of this innate sense of fairness which provokes outrage, not, typically, the violation of some philosopher's "axioms" or other abstractions.
Similarly societies have had laws of one sort or other, whether written in books, carved in stones or simply memorized and passed from generation to generation by word of mouth, for much longer than they have had philosophies.
Disclaimer: I'm not a randian. I tried reading one of her books (The Fountainhead?) once and I found the style so disagreeable I stopped after a few pages.
cheers,
Tim
Those who like this sort of thing
will find this the sort of thing they like.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
How did they know that such-and-such was fair? They had to arrive at that conclusion in some way. That process of reaching that conclusion is philosophy, even though they may not recognize it as such. Everybody applies philosophy to their lives, even if they don't realize it.
If this sense of fairness is an "evolved social faculty", it had to evolve somehow.
"Existence exists. A is A." -Ayn Rand
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Because you don't know her for the pseudo-intellectual feminist that I do.
I don't think I'd classify Rand as a feminist. Now you may not necessarily agree with some of her philosophy, but I suspect she's turning over in her grave at the notion that she's somehow a feminist.
Rand stated, regarding the "Women's Lib" movement (as it was called in her day):
"Denouncing masculine oppression, Women's Lib screams protests against the policy of regarding women as 'sex objects' - through speakers who, too obviously, are in no such danger. Proclaiming women's independence from and equality with men, Women's Lib demands liberation from the consequences of whatever sex life a woman might choose, such consequences to be borne by others: it demands free abortions and free day-nurseries. To be paid for - by whom? By men." -The Age of Envy
Those aren't the words of a feminist.
"Existence exists. A is A." -Ayn Rand
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think I'd classify Rand as a feminist. Now you may not necessarily agree with some of her philosophy, but I suspect she's turning over in her grave at the notion that she's somehow a feminist. Rand stated, regarding the "Women's Lib" movement (as it was called in her day):
"Denouncing masculine oppression, Women's Lib screams protests against the policy of regarding women as 'sex objects' - through speakers who, too obviously, are in no such danger. Proclaiming women's independence from and equality with men, Women's Lib demands liberation from the consequences of whatever sex life a woman might choose, such consequences to be borne by others: it demands free abortions and free day-nurseries. To be paid for - by whom? By men." -The Age of Envy
Those aren't the words of a feminist.
I know Rand wasn't a feminist in terms of equalizing genders and hating men; in fact she was highly in belief of male leadership, and all her fiction involved a superior male hero. However in the book "Philosophy-- Who Needs It?" she speaks at length on behalf of separating women from the consequences of their actions in denying the rights of the "fetus" in favor of abortion-rights, while remaining conspicuously silent on how this affects men's rights and responsibilities, and the woman's responsibilities thereto.
In other words, Rand was for the ability of women to force men into parenthood in cases of unintended conception, but not vice-versa even in cases of PLANNED conception in a marriage!
In the above passage, Rand is clearly speaking against socialism rather than feminism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Incidentally, everything you stated, including the quote from Jefferson, is completely in agreement with Rand's philosophy. (i.e. that the majority cannot simply rule according to its whim, but rather must rule based on sound principles.) In fact, Rand was the world's staunchest defender of the smallest minority there is: the individual. She didn't subscribe to the "group mentality" which permiates feminist thinking.
Additionally, the system which Rand advocated, laissez-faire capitalism, is the very antithesis of feminism. Feminist ideology depends on government intervention to achieve it's goals. (Redistribution of wealth into feminist social programs, affirmative action, class warfare, etc...) In a pure capitalist society, feminists would have absolutely no ability to force you to fund their programs.
Was Rand a feminist? Not in any way that I can imagine. (Except possibly her support of abortion, which even then she did not advocate taxpayers paying for them.)
"Existence exists. A is A." -Ayn Rand
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What more evidence do we need that women not only want unilateral control over reproductive rights, but not responsibilities, which are assigned to men and enforced by the state (through its "male" hierarchical law enforcement apparatus, with what feminists hypocritically consider an acceptable use of force
This is the very DFINITION of feminism, i.e. women wanting mens rights without responsibilities; rather, feminists actually have the gall to shame men for not being "man" enough to live up to responsibilities while demanding special treatment and exceptions for being women.
No one told them chivalry is an HONOR men extend to women out of men's own superior grace and virtue, and not a women's right to be demanded and taken for granted due to theirs, and without which they'd be slaves to a barbaric culture, or left to fend for themselves in open competition with men on an equal level.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Okay okay okay. Let me see, if I have this straight here. So you mean to tell me (Via this article) that if, for whatever crazy reason there is, my fiancee can go to New Zealand *sp?*, have sex with a kid less then half her age...get pregnant...and then demand child support??? What has this world come to...seriously? If that's the case, then I should be able to go out, be with anyone I want, no matter the age, and then sue them for traumatizing me, and force them to pay me punitive damages in excess of the thousands. Or am I just plain out missing something here?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday May 03, @11:06AM EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
You are only missing one thing:
She does not have to fly to New Zealand, she can do it in America, too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday May 03, @01:32PM EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
"She does not have to fly to New Zealand, she can do it in America, too."
Touche
-hobbes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday May 03, @05:02PM EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
As I said before;
'What is it gonna take, to end this garbage, Civil war...?'
-Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday May 03, @05:41PM EST (#13)
|
|
|
|
|
"'What is it gonna take, to end this garbage, Civil war...?'"
Thundercloud,
I tell ya it is tough to keep from firing the first shot. Maybe I should take a cue from my deceased neighbor Jesse James......
- Freebird
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
'What is it gonna take, to end this garbage, Civil war...?'
-Thundercloud.
Civil war against whom? Maybe it will take rioting in the streets; it probably will take a certain amount of protest to change things for the better. If men really "had all the power", such a civil war wouldn't be needed. If men really had all the power, law enforcement agencies would be completely powerless against men to enforce the feminist agenda.
But the fact is that the use of force--the force of the law, backed by the criminal justice system, the police and the military--is actively condoned and used by feminists to enforce the feminist agenda. There is nothing magical about feminism that converts the "male hierarchical" structures of power, so often criticized by feminists, into nurturing feminine cooperatives governed by consensus, when it comes to enforcing laws that result in the state demanding child support from twelve-year olds. The idea that women are always victims and men are always perpetrators isn't only completely and utterly without merit, it is a wilfully malicious lie, as evidenced by countless examples of the enforcement of laws that feminists help to create.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday May 04, @11:58PM EST (#25)
|
|
|
|
|
I write this with good intentions.
A most shocking state of gross injustice exists in NZ. Whatever the causes, who ever is at fault. We're all disgusted. 24 comments previously expressing moral indignation and outrage. That's healthy.
What's not healthy is that no action to assist the boy, his family or anyone else in the same situation has been mentioned or raised. Like writing a letter to the government of NZ - to that Clark woman herself - the Prime Minister, for example.
My point here is that until someone and everyone takes responsibility for attacking evil, where ever it is, then talking about it is a total waste of time. It's just going to give you ulcers and it lets the perpetrators continue while they laugh at you.
Talk is not activism - action is.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
