Tuesday, July 1, 2014
Prejudice, is it the "inn" thing?
Life is about the law that governs the situation. The context in question; Was it perjury, or not? Because if there is no evidence there can be no conviction; unless, of cause -there is corruption. This is the game of Law: you act according to the statutes. But her prejudice begs to be heard; therefore, she says "guilty" based upon some instinct buried deep down in the dogma of the church -the bowel of her psyche. As far as I'm concerned, she did not care about the truth. She cares more about her perception of civic duty. For example, Men have a penis; you have a penis; you are a man; therefore, you are guilty of sin -guilty in "imagination" -their prejudice. There is nothing, if the church can get the edge over on your interest -in favor of their interest. If they can in fact do this, why is there a law? -A law of evidence? Why should anyone be subjugated to a prejudice? What will you do about it? Nothing most likely because no one cares. Yes! I know that maybe you side on the side of those who believed that it was Marie Antoinette who did in fact say, "...Let them eat cake...."Well let me say, "fuck you" if you think that there is a place for individual prejudice in the administration of the Laws that governs the Social Contract.