0 évaluation0% ont trouvé ce document utile (0 vote)
21 vues3 pages
"Ignorance is a Choice"
Yes, it is true: "Ignorance is a Choice".
Ignorance means: "Someone KNOWS the TRUTH but chooses to ignore it."
It is wrong, yet perverse, to ignore the truth.
It is wrong, yet perverse, to ignore inarguable facts.
...but it is even more PERVERSE to CIRCULATE FALSE, MISLEADING INFORMATION in spite of knowing the correct information.
"Ignorance is a Choice"
Yes, it is true: "Ignorance is a Choice".
Ignorance means: "Someone KNOWS the TRUTH but chooses to ignore it."
It is wrong, yet perverse, to ignore the truth.
It is wrong, yet perverse, to ignore inarguable facts.
...but it is even more PERVERSE to CIRCULATE FALSE, MISLEADING INFORMATION in spite of knowing the correct information.
"Ignorance is a Choice"
Yes, it is true: "Ignorance is a Choice".
Ignorance means: "Someone KNOWS the TRUTH but chooses to ignore it."
It is wrong, yet perverse, to ignore the truth.
It is wrong, yet perverse, to ignore inarguable facts.
...but it is even more PERVERSE to CIRCULATE FALSE, MISLEADING INFORMATION in spite of knowing the correct information.
Ignorance means: "Someone KNOWS the TRUTH but chooses to ignore it."
It is rong, !et "er#erse, to ignore the truth. It is rong, !et "er#erse, to ignore inarguab$e %acts.
...but it is e#en more &'R('RS' to CIRCU)*T' +*)S', ,IS)'*-IN. IN+OR,*TION in s"ite o% /noing the correct in%ormation. *n0 !es in0ee0: ... those ho chose to create0 an0 circu$ate this +*))*CY te$$ing the &'R&'TR*TORS o% THIS CRI,' in "articu$ar an0 the "ub$ic in genera$ , that TH' CHI)- *1US' o% +ORC'- CIRCU,CISION ""is $ega$ in estern countries"" an0 that "on$! +., is out$ae0", ha#e CHOS'N to I.NOR' the TRUTH an0 thus ha#e CHOS'N to CIRCU)*T' +*)S', ,IS)'*-IN. IN+OR,*TION. Yes in0ee0: ... it is most ob#ious that those ho chose to create an0 circu$ate this +*))*CY are circu$ating the #er! same +*))*CY 2 +*)S', ,IS)'*-IN. IN+OR,*TION, that "Intact *merica.org" an0 its "&resi0ent .eorganne Cha"in" is circu$ating since o"ening her mouth b! stating in "Intact *merica.org3s &rinci"$e Statement: "On$! +., is out$ae0, but bo!s are accor0e0 no such "rotection", an0 thus rong$!, %a$$acious$!, im"$!ing: "",., is not out$ae0, but $ega$ in *merica"", an0 thus 2 1)*T*NT)Y I.NORIN. the IN*R.U*1)' +*CT that both, ,., an0 +., are in0ee0 *)R'*-Y OUT)*W'- un0er e4isting -emocratic Ru$e o% Constitutiona$ an0 Statutor! )a.
1UT: Is *NYON' ... are .eorganne Cha"in o% Intact *merica.org an0 a$$ those ho circu$ate her +*)S', ,IS)'*-IN. &RINCI&)' ST*T','NT ab$e to "ro0uce inte$$igib$e e#i0ence 2 em"iric e#i0ence 2 e#i0ence that her statement is true5
NO ... o% course NOT6
The inarguab$e %act is, that NO "erson is ab$e to "ro0uce a US2)a that "$ega$i7es ,.,". SUCH a )*W -O'S NOT '8IST6
The inarguab$e %act is, that TH' )*W '8ISTS un0er hich ,., an0 +., are *)R'*-Y '9U*))Y OUT)*W'- un0er -emocratic Ru$e o% Constitutiona$ an0 Statutor! )a.
I am stating 2 b! shoing 2 THIS IN*R.U*1)' '(I-'NC' 2 b! a! o% shoing TH' *CTU*) )*W un0er hich ,., an0 +., are a$rea0! e:ua$$! out$ae0 since 0eca0es.
.erorganne Cha"in /nos that; !es the intacti#ist mo#ement /nos that; those ho circu$ate this %a$se, mis$ea0ing in%ormation "",., is $ega$"" /no that ... because I am in%orming the entire Intacti#ist ,o#ement about the inarguab$e %act that ,., an0 +., are a$rea0! out$ae0 since 0eca0es.
Yet 2 an0 in s"ite o% ha#ing been %u$$! in%orme0 about the inarguab$e %act that ,., an0 +., are a$rea0! out$ae0 un0er 0emocratic ru$e o% $a 2 e#en INT*CTI(IST CHOOS' to I.NOR' this +*CT o% WRITT'N <US2+e0era$ )a= > +e0era$ Chi$0 *buse &re#ention an0 Treatment *ct ?C*&T*@ AB U.S.C.*. C DEFGg 2 BFEF 2 &.). EEE2HBF, Iust as is state0 in the Uni#ersa$ 0ec$aration o% -eman0 %or )a 'n%orcement on this S!stemati7e0 Chi$0 *buse o% +orce0 Circumcision.
Can !ou or an!one e$se 0en! the e4istence o% this $a5 NO ... o% course NOT6
So: The question remains: Ho can *NYON' ... ho can .eorganne Cha"in an0 a$$ the others ho choose to ignore the e4istence o% this $a ... e4"$ain, ho can *NYON' Iusti%! the 0ire, !et "er#erse %act o% choosing to ignore the e4istence o% this $a ... an0 e#en more "er#erse ... to circu$ate the %a$se, mis$ea0ing in%ormation in sa!ing "",., is $ega$ in estern countries""5
... hi$e 2 o% course 2 it is abso$ute$! "ro#en b! a! o% '8ISTIN. WOR- O+ )*W, that <,., constitutes the crime o% in%$iction o% non2acci0enta$ inIur! on a chi$0= as is 0e%ine0 un0er +e0era$ C*&T* )a, an0 thus is *1SO)UT')Y OUT)*W'-, regar0$ess b! ho, on hom an0 %or hate#er reason in%$icte06
Conc$usion: The statement ""+., is out$ae0, but bo!s are accor0e0 no such "rotection"" IS +*)S'666 The statement "",., resu$ts ""sometimes" in #er! ser#er 0amage" IS +*)S'666
The correct in%ormation is: a@ +orce0 Circumcision on Humans o% an! *ge an0 .en0er is a$rea0! OUT)*W'- un0er -emocratic Ru$e o% )a6
b@ 1oth ,., an0 +., a$a!s resu$t in ('RY S'('R' -*,*.'666 ... the remo#a$ o% a hea$th! bo0! "art a$a!s constitutes ,*8I,U, -*,*.'666
It is high time that those ho circu$ate %a$se, mis$ea0ing in%ormation STO& -OIN. SO666
'#er!one nee0 to KNOW that ,., is CHI)- *1US' an0 *)R'*-Y OUT)*W'- an0 that the go#ernment has the constitutiona$ ob$igation to en%orce the $a on an! %orm o% chi$0 abuse, thus a$so on the CHI)- *1US' o% +orce0 ,a$e Chi$0 Circumcision666
Here is the correct in%ormation again, Iust as is being 0irect$! a00resse0 to the &resi0ent o% the Unite0 States o% *merica; the entire go#ernment; the "ub$ic an0 sure$! in this a$so to the intacti#ist mo#ement: .intacthumanit!.org
I a$so ma/e it #er! c$ear, that I not on$! o""ose an0 counteract an! %a$se, mis$ea0ing statement circu$ate0 b! the +orce0 Circumcision ,a%ia, but o% course a$so an! %a$se, mis$ea0ing statement circu$ate0 b! the intacti#ists or an!one e$se %or that matter.
"Intacti#ism3s %irst an0 %oremost res"onsibi$it! is to gi#e abso$ute correct in%ormation, an0 to e4"ose an0 counteract an! %a$se, mis$ea0ing in%ormation, regar0$ess b! ho an0 h! circu$ate0." *men