My sister bragged about going to military bases in the 1960s to rack up her body count when she was probably not old enough to drive. Are we supposed to see only fault with the men?
You know, the military advertises on children's entertainment and recruits soldiers from high schools to kill and die for their country, so in this case, I kind of think that nobody is in the wrong.
All my female cousins were dating older guys when they were 16 and 17. This goes back to the 70s. Were they having sex? Absolutely. The guys had cars and money. I remember my mother saying to my aunt make sure she’s on the pill. Remember this was right after the sexual revolution started by feminists. Many of the girls 16-18 at my old high school were dating guys in their early 20s.
Gynocentrism is not just in our collective psychology but encoded in the legal system. Carceral feminism isn't just calling for more men to be punished in the prison system, but arguing that women are too sensitive and innocent to ever be prosecuted. It's not uncommon to hear women express the notion that laws don't apply to their actions and even when they do commit crimes, they lack the agency to be held accountable
I'm tempted to say this is unreal but after you see how men and women are unequally punished for similar crimes, this is just more example of the appalling injustice men must endure in today's society.
In case you're not aware of the disparity when it comes to men's sentences vs women's, men get 60% longer times than women do FOR THE SAME CRIMES, but even worse, often women get NO sentence AT ALL, as in the case here, which is NOT unusual. So, how do you even measure that when a woman gets NO sentence at all while a man can get years in jail ? 1000000 % longer sentences ?
At 18 he ought to have known better than to have anything to do with a 13 year old. He is now learning the hard way what i knew instictively at that age. Sure, i feel bad for him but i cant quite figure out why he thought this was anything other than a very bad idea.
Statutory rape prosecutions get way worse than this. I'm surprised she didn't pick a better case to highlight the cruelty exhibited against young men. He knew they were underage and quite a ways underage. It's a little strange he would want anything to do with 13 y.o. girls at his age whereas an 18 or 19 y.o. young man who is in a relationship with a 17 year old is not only not aberrant behavior it is completely normal and expected behavior. It's also not uncommon for the boy to have been lied to by the girl about her age and how exactly is a young man supposed to figure this out? A friend's little brother was thrown in prison after dating a girl for 4 months that turned out to be underage.
The work you've put in on this channel is tremendous and deserves more recognition - I'd like to help by creating short vertical videos from your longform content. I tried to reach out via your website but didn't get a response.
Call me a softie or say my hard drive needs to be checked, but I feel sorry for those who have no choice but to identify themselves as "pd-files" (I believe I'm not allowed to use the correct spelling of this legitimate word). Many have been ritually knifed and sexually degraded as babies, and then at 16 until their graves they are categorised as "terrorists" by the state, at least in the UK. Imagine that: a severe violation of bodily autonomy, followed by the criminalisation of their minds. There is supposed to be something in the Human Rights Act that says: "cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment is against the law". It's not a fair life, is it?
@@jonahtwhale1779 This is the kind of fallacy that I've seen over and over. Somebody is suffering under an unjust law, so we have to spread it out by making other people suffer.
@@natwhite1679 Quote by a German criminal judge and law professor: "I'm in criminal proceedings against women always get in trouble again, and I have therefore asked each what punishment I would against a man with the same charges and penalties recognized on this penalty then less a 'woman rebate'. A woman discount is justified because women have it harder in life and therefore work harder punishments for them." Do you think that judges in other countries would be any different? Thanks to them women get lighter sentences.
Just because men suffer from these cruel unjust laws that doesn't mean women should also suffer. Instead, the laws should be done away with altogether.
Do you realize that when you use the words “LAW” or "LEGAL", instead of the proper word, “rule”, you are giving authority and legitimacy to the arbitrary rules imposed on citizens by dirty, demonic, democratic governments? "F.I.S.H", Ch. 12: There is but ONE law - the inextricable laws of God. These laws include the natural laws (such as the law of gravity and the various cycles of the biosphere) as well as the moral laws (which are extremely complex and must be revealed via God’s spokesmen, i.e. prophets). When either kind of law is transgressed, there is a detrimental effect on the entire universe. Every thought and deed has an equal and opposite reaction. The various “laws” instigated by governments are (in almost every instance) merely subjective rules and regulations imposed by self-obsessed men and women. Judging the actions of others is a normal, natural and necessary function of every thinking person. However, one can only directly PASS judgement on those whom one has direct or indirect authority over. One should avoid passing judgement on those one has no authority over but remain silent. To read the remaining twenty-nine chapters of “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”, which your god has graciously given to his people on Earth, email the address listed on the "About" page of my UA-cam channel, with the acronym “FISH” in the subject field. 🐟
@@natwhite1679 A LAW is a principle predicated on an inextricable axiom. In the realm of physics, an example of such an unchanging axiom may be: According to the law of reflection, the angle of incidence equals the angle of reflection. In the field of thought/logic, an example of such a fundamental axiom may be: Based on the law of non-contradiction, a propositional statement, such as “It is raining”, cannot be both true and false, in the sense that it cannot be raining and not raining at the same time, in the same place. In the realm of morality, there is but a singular inextricable law/principle, and that is, the axiom of: Do no undue (that is to say, do no unjustifiable) harm to oneself, to human society as a whole, to other living organisms, or to the inorganic environment, and preferably, as far as practicable and reasonable, execute those actions that will benefit oneself, human society as a whole, other living beings, and/or the natural environment (even if no obvious signs of life are present therein). Any other proposed metaethical stance, such as utilitarianism or Divine Command Theory, is definitionally a normative posture, as these fail to address the central question of what precisely constitutes morality/ethics, as will be thoroughly demonstrated within this chapter of “F.I.S.H”. MORALITY/ETHICS is that branch of philosophy concerned with how any particular volitional act conforms to or contradicts this moral law. Hence, the plural (“laws”) is utterly redundant. Thus, the phrase, “The laws of my country seem to be awfully oppressive”, is nullified by the very definition of the term “law”. The self-styled “laws” listed in the so-called “law books” of the various local, state, and national governments of the world, are largely spurious rules or regulations, that are an attempt to codify normative rejoinders to a range of nominally-criminal acts. MORAL acts are those deeds performed by a human that benefits that individual, other individual humans, society as a whole, other organic life forms, and/or the natural environment (irrespective of whether or not the environmental undertaking or activity directly benefits organic life). Theoretically, a non-human animal, too, can execute a moral deed, such as a dog that rescues its owner from drowning in a pool of water. AMORAL acts (at least for the purpose of this teaching) are those actions that are neither against the moral law nor those that directly benefit oneself, society as a whole, or the natural environment (in other words, amoral acts are neutral acts). Only an infinitesimally-tiny proportion of all our endeavours belong to this category. Any harmful action that is purely accidental, is neither moral nor immoral, and therefore, is amoral. IMMORAL deeds are those premeditated actions that are in defiance of the moral law. This refers to those volitional actions accomplished by a person of adequate rational competence (that is, a child over the age of reason, or an adult who is not mentally disabled, and in some cases, a non-human mammal belonging to a species with a relatively advanced intellectual capacity, especially a domestic pet) that are intended to cause harm to individuals (including oneself), to society as a whole, or to the natural environment, the latter of which may include other living organisms. Here, “act” may include an “act” of omission. If one has the ability and the opportunity of assisting a fellow human (and in certain cases, a non-human) being in dire need, one ought to do so. In this regard, refer to the section concerning the so-called “is-ought problem”.
Connor asked for and received sexual images of a 13 year old girl. That is a felony. That just by itself brands him a pedophile, and in my own moral estimation, warrants a lot more violent treatment than the benevolent criminal justice system will give him, of being sent to prison AS punishment, not FOR punishment. All child predators must be removed from the general public for the remainder of their lives, however long or short that may be for the safety of our children. Anything less than this is not just negligent, but culpable for further crimes committed against these children by known offenders.
The lack of accountability is breathtaking.
Janice is a(n) (inter)national treasure.
In her quiet and understated way, Janice Fiammengo is able to expose the hypocrisy and selective outrage of modern feminism. Salute to her!
My sister bragged about going to military bases in the 1960s to rack up her body count when she was probably not old enough to drive. Are we supposed to see only fault with the men?
You know, the military advertises on children's entertainment and recruits soldiers from high schools to kill and die for their country, so in this case, I kind of think that nobody is in the wrong.
She was whore, but those men are not better, nothing illegal though
All my female cousins were dating older guys when they were 16 and 17. This goes back to the 70s. Were they having sex? Absolutely. The guys had cars and money. I remember my mother saying to my aunt make sure she’s on the pill. Remember this was right after the sexual revolution started by feminists. Many of the girls 16-18 at my old high school were dating guys in their early 20s.
Those female pandering judges and jurors disgust me.
Gynocentrism is not just in our collective psychology but encoded in the legal system. Carceral feminism isn't just calling for more men to be punished in the prison system, but arguing that women are too sensitive and innocent to ever be prosecuted. It's not uncommon to hear women express the notion that laws don't apply to their actions and even when they do commit crimes, they lack the agency to be held accountable
I'm tempted to say this is unreal but after you see how men and women are unequally punished for similar crimes, this is just more example of the appalling injustice men must endure in today's society.
In case you're not aware of the disparity when it comes to men's sentences vs women's, men get 60% longer times than women do FOR THE SAME CRIMES, but even worse, often women get NO sentence AT ALL, as in the case here, which is NOT unusual. So, how do you even measure that when a woman gets NO sentence at all while a man can get years in jail ? 1000000 % longer sentences ?
Janice, I totally agree with everything you say. But I'm sure, no one at the CBC will be calling you for an interview.
Janice certainly has a flair for speaking truth to power...
At 18 he ought to have known better than to have anything to do with a 13 year old. He is now learning the hard way what i knew instictively at that age. Sure, i feel bad for him but i cant quite figure out why he thought this was anything other than a very bad idea.
Another fine content, Janice. The Incarceration Gap is something feminists just can never seem to acknowledge.
The charging gap let's them get away with murder. Literally. Won't be charged, prosecuted, or given real time.
Statutory rape prosecutions get way worse than this. I'm surprised she didn't pick a better case to highlight the cruelty exhibited against young men.
He knew they were underage and quite a ways underage. It's a little strange he would want anything to do with 13 y.o. girls at his age whereas an 18 or 19 y.o. young man who is in a relationship with a 17 year old is not only not aberrant behavior it is completely normal and expected behavior.
It's also not uncommon for the boy to have been lied to by the girl about her age and how exactly is a young man supposed to figure this out? A friend's little brother was thrown in prison after dating a girl for 4 months that turned out to be underage.
lol, she sent nude photos of herself to a boy. . .its surprising He wasn’t charged with some offense.
Thanks for the new word.
A, the Injustice System, at it again.
It's hideous how evil most women can be...
Judge Moriarty thinks when Ms Lavoie gets that feelin ,she shares "$exual healin"
Feminist use the state but let's imagine that men quit the state who is going to enforce the law if physicality is required?
Janice is a great woman!
Plenty of injustice to go around here, between the sexes.
Great work, thank you.
Great work, you are a brave voice.
The work you've put in on this channel is tremendous and deserves more recognition - I'd like to help by creating short vertical videos from your longform content. I tried to reach out via your website but didn't get a response.
This happened to someone I know. 😭😭😭😭 in prison for almost 10 years.
I can listen to her sane reality all day
I’m trying to make a joke out of thinking this must be a breakfast cereal. Surprisingly, I can’t do it. Not a good one.
If it were, it would give you cancer.
Call me a softie or say my hard drive needs to be checked, but I feel sorry for those who have no choice but to identify themselves as "pd-files" (I believe I'm not allowed to use the correct spelling of this legitimate word). Many have been ritually knifed and sexually degraded as babies, and then at 16 until their graves they are categorised as "terrorists" by the state, at least in the UK. Imagine that: a severe violation of bodily autonomy, followed by the criminalisation of their minds. There is supposed to be something in the Human Rights Act that says: "cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment is against the law". It's not a fair life, is it?
It's not true at all that women don't suffer under these laws.
Equally?
@@jonahtwhale1779 This is the kind of fallacy that I've seen over and over. Somebody is suffering under an unjust law, so we have to spread it out by making other people suffer.
@@natwhite1679
Quote by a German criminal judge and law professor:
"I'm in criminal proceedings against women always get in trouble again, and I have therefore asked each what punishment I would against a man with the same charges and penalties recognized on this penalty then less a 'woman rebate'.
A woman discount is justified because women have it harder in life and therefore work harder punishments for them."
Do you think that judges in other countries would be any different? Thanks to them women get lighter sentences.
Just because men suffer from these cruel unjust laws that doesn't mean women should also suffer. Instead, the laws should be done away with altogether.
Do you realize that when you use the words “LAW” or "LEGAL", instead of the proper word, “rule”, you are giving authority and legitimacy to the arbitrary rules imposed on citizens by dirty, demonic, democratic governments?
"F.I.S.H", Ch. 12:
There is but ONE law - the inextricable laws of God. These laws include the natural laws (such as the law of gravity and the various cycles of the biosphere) as well as the moral laws (which are extremely complex and must be revealed via God’s spokesmen, i.e. prophets).
When either kind of law is transgressed, there is a detrimental effect on the entire universe. Every thought and deed has an equal and opposite reaction. The various “laws” instigated by governments are (in almost every instance) merely subjective rules and regulations imposed by self-obsessed men and women.
Judging the actions of others is a normal, natural and necessary function of every thinking person. However, one can only directly PASS judgement on those whom one has direct or indirect authority over. One should avoid passing judgement on those one has no authority over but remain silent.
To read the remaining twenty-nine chapters of “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”, which your god has graciously given to his people on Earth, email the address listed on the "About" page of my UA-cam channel,
with the acronym “FISH” in the subject field.
🐟
@@TheVeganVicar Thank you. Most interesting.
So statutory rape laws should be abolished? Rape laws should be done away with? Just what are you proposing?
@@jaimeosbourn3616 Statutory rape laws should be abolished or lowered drastically.
@@natwhite1679
A LAW is a principle predicated on an inextricable axiom. In the realm of physics, an example of such an unchanging axiom may be: According to the law of reflection, the angle of incidence equals the angle of reflection. In the field of thought/logic, an example of such a fundamental axiom may be: Based on the law of non-contradiction, a propositional statement, such as “It is raining”, cannot be both true and false, in the sense that it cannot be raining and not raining at the same time, in the same place. In the realm of morality, there is but a singular inextricable law/principle, and that is, the axiom of: Do no undue (that is to say, do no unjustifiable) harm to oneself, to human society as a whole, to other living organisms, or to the inorganic environment, and preferably, as far as practicable and reasonable, execute those actions that will benefit oneself, human society as a whole, other living beings, and/or the natural environment (even if no obvious signs of life are present therein). Any other proposed metaethical stance, such as utilitarianism or Divine Command Theory, is definitionally a normative posture, as these fail to address the central question of what precisely constitutes morality/ethics, as will be thoroughly demonstrated within this chapter of “F.I.S.H”.
MORALITY/ETHICS is that branch of philosophy concerned with how any particular volitional act conforms to or contradicts this moral law. Hence, the plural (“laws”) is utterly redundant. Thus, the phrase, “The laws of my country seem to be awfully oppressive”, is nullified by the very definition of the term “law”. The self-styled “laws” listed in the so-called “law books” of the various local, state, and national governments of the world, are largely spurious rules or regulations, that are an attempt to codify normative rejoinders to a range of nominally-criminal acts.
MORAL acts are those deeds performed by a human that benefits that individual, other individual humans, society as a whole, other organic life forms, and/or the natural environment (irrespective of whether or not the environmental undertaking or activity directly benefits organic life). Theoretically, a non-human animal, too, can execute a moral deed, such as a dog that rescues its owner from drowning in a pool of water.
AMORAL acts (at least for the purpose of this teaching) are those actions that are neither against the moral law nor those that directly benefit oneself, society as a whole, or the natural environment (in other words, amoral acts are neutral acts). Only an infinitesimally-tiny proportion of all our endeavours belong to this category. Any harmful action that is purely accidental, is neither moral nor immoral, and therefore, is amoral.
IMMORAL deeds are those premeditated actions that are in defiance of the moral law. This refers to those volitional actions accomplished by a person of adequate rational competence (that is, a child over the age of reason, or an adult who is not mentally disabled, and in some cases, a non-human mammal belonging to a species with a relatively advanced intellectual capacity, especially a domestic pet) that are intended to cause harm to individuals (including oneself), to society as a whole, or to the natural environment, the latter of which may include other living organisms. Here, “act” may include an “act” of omission. If one has the ability and the opportunity of assisting a fellow human (and in certain cases, a non-human) being in dire need, one ought to do so. In this regard, refer to the section concerning the so-called “is-ought problem”.
Connor asked for and received sexual images of a 13 year old girl. That is a felony. That just by itself brands him a pedophile, and in my own moral estimation, warrants a lot more violent treatment than the benevolent criminal justice system will give him, of being sent to prison AS punishment, not FOR punishment. All child predators must be removed from the general public for the remainder of their lives, however long or short that may be for the safety of our children. Anything less than this is not just negligent, but culpable for further crimes committed against these children by known offenders.
"Connor asked for and received..."
Listen to 9:57 - 10:06 again.
Just so long as you also think this applies to women...
This issue is that this is most unevenly applied to men and women. And has been for many decades.
Every man's best life is one without a woman in it.