jump to navigation

On Foreseeability September 26, 2011

Posted by FCM in books!, logic, PIV, pop culture, radical concepts.
Tags: , , , ,
comments closed

in 1991 when NASA was launching the satellite that just plunged to earth this weekend, did anyone any of the men and male-identified women there give a shit that the satellite was going to fall to earth at some point?  and that someone or many people could easily be killed when (not if) this happened?

i am talking about foreseeability.  we need to understand (if we dont already) that there are cost/benefit analyses being performed all the time in many situations where our lives hang in the balance, by men who see the math something like this (as in the case of the falling satellite): chances of someone on earth being hit: 1 in 3,200.  chances of any individual (for example, me, or any one of them) being hit: 1 in 22 trillion.  yes, the chances that any one of them would be injured here were remote, at best: 1 in 22 trillion are very bad odds (or very good odds, depending on your perspective.  if you *wanted* one of them to be hit, the odds were bad that this would happen).  however, the odds that *someone* would in fact be hit by a piece of this thing, which ended up being 1200 pounds of space junk in various sized pieces, the biggest about the size of a city bus, were actually extremely high.  if the odds of winning the lottery had been this good, “humanity” shouldve purchased a ticket.

we discussed intent and its relation to foreseeability previously here, when discussing mary daly’s quintessence.  and the fact of the matter is that if an outcome is foreseeable, or known, and its brought about anyway, that particular outcome was and is intentional.  degrees of foreseeability exist of course, for which we have statistics to guide us (or to assess the situation in its aftermath): if something is only a remote possibility, bringing it about anyway puts less culpability on those who made it happen.  the more likely the outcome is, the more culpable the actor is.  this is according to men, who are forever bringing about “outcomes” that include death on a global scale and incalculable suffering to women and children, and to other men too.  those other men over there, of course.  never to themselves.  but enough about the men.

in the case of surgical lobotomies of women, for example, the result was that the procedure made women “good housekeepers.”  this result was known, and the procedure was performed again and again and again.  it literally killed womens wildness and creativity, and turned them into compliant fembots with accessible vaginas (and wombs) and this was repeated again and again.  this is what these doctors (and the womens husbands and families) wanted: it really couldnt be more obvious.  surgically lobotomozing women wasnt intended as a treatment for mental illness or anything else.  the actual-end result was the intent.  it was meant to kill women, while keeping them sexually and reproductively available.

and in the case of the twin towers of the world trade center (for example) men built vertically leaving such massive amounts of potential energy at a height, that death was the easily foreseeable result, should the buildings ever fall.  and no building stands forever.  hmmm!

and in the case of space-junk, which is likely to fall to earth and kill someone?

in that case, as in all cases, a cost-benefit analysis was performed by those in charge, and they decided that it was worth it *to them* to go ahead and do it.  that the cost *to them* was outweighed by the benefit *to them* to put someone else (not them) in serious danger at some point.  importantly, *they* (the science doods at NASA) are exactly the ones with the power to be able to predict and know where this stuff would rain down when it happened, and to make sure *they* were as far away as possible.  so really, the 1 in 22 trillion probably didnt even apply to them: their odds were probably even better.  because they are the ones in control, they are making the rules and monitoring the whole thing they are lowering *their* odds of anything bad happening to them as much as possible.

keeping all of this in mind…lets discuss PIV.  the chances of men becoming impregnated against their wills, through PIV and PIV-centric sex: not 1 in 22 trillion.  not “something” even less than that.  zero.  zero!  chances of men being injured and killed in childbirth, whether its a wanted pregnancy, an unwanted one or an ambivalent one:  zero.  the cost-benefit analysis men are forever doing in their minds is very easy in this case, if the “outcome” being considered here is pregnancy, and pregnancy-related complications.  and thats just the cost-benefit analysis: couple mens “zero risk” with the obvious fact that part of (or all) of the payout of PIV for men IS that they are impregnating women, and women putting their trust in men, including mens idiotic “birth control methods” seems very obviously, and hideously misplaced.

and obviously, if one knows and understands the result or the easily foreseeable result, and does it anyway, that result was exactly what was intended.  and men are deliberately impregnating women, against our wills and otherwise, through PIV and PIV-centic sex.  its deliberate!  we must understand this.  they are also deliberately creating and then relying on (and having us rely on) “contraceptive” methods that are unreliable, when they and only they are the ones with the power to improve this situation.  so far they havent.  but they sure as hell can make things extremely safe *for themselves* when they want to.

indeed, when one considers the concept of “final causality” and the end-result being the intent, this sheds a lot of light on male-defined concepts of “collateral damage” and “statistical probability” and “negligence” and everything else: these are mens weasel-words, designed to obscure the obvious foreseeability (and intentionality) of the outcomes they cause.  driving at a high rate of speed in a residential area, for example.  what are men willing to call it when another man kills someone this way?  or… firey drunken high-speed crashes in the middle of the night.  children shooting themselves with loaded guns kept in the house, or eating poison from under the sink (who benefits from this?  follow the money, honey; very young children arent mentally-developed enough to have intent.  but it doesnt make it an unforeseeable accident, does it?).  women being expected to partner with men, and only men, with no other adults around, when this is known to lead to womens deaths and incalculable suffering.

all of this is deliberate, and men benefit from and control it.  all of it.  that is all.