Join John Adams, world renowned Intl Matchmaker, Monday nights 8:30 EST for Live Webcasts!
And check out Five Reasons why you should attend a FREE AFA Seminar! See locations and dates here.
View Active Topics View Your Posts Latest 100 Topics FAQ Topics Mobile Friendly Theme
Discuss and talk about any general topic.
2 posts • Page 1 of 1
I've got to say that I've felt this way for a while. I figure living in America is like living in enemy territory, at least on the official level. Cops, doctors, judges, school employees- anybody with "policies," really. It's like anyone that considers themselves "them" or "they" act like tyrants & everyone else as enemies for countering their actions. I get the impression that these people hate other people's agency- it's just the ability to do actions, it doesn't matter what the action is. Of course, it adds to things if the DID do something.
Look at schools: Whenever there's a rumor or something goes missing, things get strange & they always act like somehow what HAPPENS isn't what OCCURS. "Oh, yeah, we did this- but that isn't what transpired." Something doesn't HAVE to be useless to be a problem & the components of a methodology don't cease to exist in their own right. I don't need my kid to get attacked by some "kindergarten commando" with a badge, either. They strip, beat, and taser people as a typical thing and that more & more includes kids. Every damn thing is against a law or some kind of unwritten rule & that's when there's a catalyst to begin with- it's not unheard of for them to make the first move. Not unheard of for that first move to be some form of imposed probing, either. Since it's more & more likely for them to go after someone now, I figure that these things are important considerations for someone to take into account. Definitely comes to mind for me anytime I consider starting a family.
Damn-near everything medical causes a problem. Nothing does what it's supposed to do & i's increasingly thrust upon people. That apparently happens with schools, too: Trying to connect the dots until something looks like a disorder, then threatening the parents with child abuse/neglect/endangerment charges if they don't put them on something. That, or just outright trying to take them away. Medical personnel can get real dictatorial with people about everything & that means different things depending on mechanics. Somethings are more common with women & girls than with men & boys, but "iatrogenic attack" would be the broad term for all of it. Sometime people forget that reality doesn't take a coffee break for doctors.
Judges basically act like a pissy little dictator that may or may not wear a dress. Anytime you run into problems with the law or those problems run into you, you never know if the judge is going to try to edit your testimony to suit a constructed model. Maybe the judge decides to forbid someone from describing an attack as an attack like with that woman in Nebraska (she was told she was not allowed to use the word "rape, sxual assault, attack, or victim" when this is what the trial was about). Now someone is declared innocent or guilty by the judge's meddlings, not an actual trial. Considering the guy was trying to make sure that someone couldn't effectively level charges of rape against someone, I'd say that's likely to be a negative thing- not someone getting off the hook because the judge has a heart & doesn't want someone to get nailed over some legal loophole.
This is driving someone to commit perjury, by-the-way. Whether it's the giving of false testimony at the judge's "request," or leveling false accusations when it's found false after this managed testimony. This is a huge threat, considering that you can get accused of something & not be able to defend yourself or try to use the law as a recourse & have the tables turned on you. What about when they consider it "contempt of court" when you depict the situation as it happened? How about when someone has a justified outburst when the judge demands that they exalt the assailant by depicting their actions as better than what they are? This is an attack on the judge's part to begin with, but whatever retaliation they try to direct at someone for this "contempt of court" is an additional problem.
Considering all of this, you'd think the major population would be on your side & they very well might be- but it's a bit of a coin-flip. Another thing is that they might not jump in & help you. It's weird, but it seems like they want these problems to exist so that they CAN be the lucky ones that don't encounter them- like winning the lottery. The only recourse that I've found to be considered acceptable is reruitment. If they can't convert or convince an enemy & get them on their side, then they might try to catch them in a lie or get them to say something hypocritical. That's pretty much it. They sometimes take the idea of using an enemy's momentum against them to a dependant level. This, of course, will mostly be ineffective. Fighting back doesn't mean just wanting a different things to happen. It also seems like they don't want to do anything counteractive because they're worried about what would happen if a bad guy did that in a different situation.