Tuesday, 19 April 2016

Idiots' Reasoning

Since at most 2002 I am tormented with names and sentences and misinformation and atrocity that comes from nowhere I can clearly identify by the moment I am suffering that. We would think that nobody in democracy, First World, capitalism, where they sign for human rights, would have doubts in what regards the essentials: No law can be disobeyed at absolutely any expense. People have a fair go in the court to prove their point, that perhaps they could have committed the crimes they have committed, but the law must still be applied in all cases up to that point, of the court session. 

There is obviously no possible argument that would justify breaching the law therefore, especially the law that protects our most fundamental rights: property, freedom, and privacy.

Some people have used part of my talk, let's say, with Trevor, even though I would call that more information giveaway or something like that, to attack me throughout these years (since the end of 2001). The most curious part of all is that those who attack my most fundamental rights since back then could never ever have had access not even to one word I told Trevor legally or inside of loyalty, since they were my most feared enemies, and I asked, with all words, that they kept maximum confidentiality in what regards what I said there, especially in terms of those. Brazilians were supposed to absolutely never have access to any second of my talks with Trevor: They were the most feared people on earth for me, the ones I could never trust for anything. It is precisely those that go commanding my slow, and so painful, criminal martyrdom all these years, as incredible as it may seem.

Back in 2002, there was a mention to KIM, who should be Cameron's girlfriend, as if implying that I was getting what I was getting for desiring Cameron. I unfortunately never even desired him. I at most felt like kissing  him, being kissed or letting him do whatever he wanted or seemed to want. I actually told Trevor I thought that he was pretty disgusting at that stage, since he seemed to sexually provoke me, make even Bradley believe that that is what he was doing, and not go ahead, this even with Bradley telling him to go ahead and me agreeing. 

Even if the laws did not exist and we accepted that people can violate human rights in certain conditions in Australia or Brazil, and, in special, that they can do that when they are authorities for law and order, or they can let it happen, and I would then probably have to add for an unlimited amount of time, since this is already more than fourteen years, we would expect the reasons for such a violation to be quite plausible. 

Is the fact that I correspond to the interest of a man in me, a man who wears no ring, and says that he lives with his parents or in a house exclusively with flatmates, like no partner, enough reason?

I would not think so, especially if one has my history on earth, of having each and every man of her life used by another person with them in haste and horror, and incapable of doing a thing about it. The amount of disrespect of women for my personal space is infinite, this since I am very young.

I obviously have plenty of credit with Australian and Brazilian women, Australian and Brazilian gay men, since they have disrespected my relationships to an extreme, and, upon complaint, ALSO my privacy, freedom, and property rights, this now for more than fourteen years. 

If a person steals your own life, your own rights to enjoying yourself or any part of your body by yourself, I would think that you can even kill them, and you would be forgiven in any fair court of Brazil and Australia if you could prove that that is what has happened, given the regimens in place. If I can even take their lives, I can certainly sexually use their men. What I see happening, however, is that I am actually sexually violated too, this all the way through. I seem to be more to the passive than to the active side of things almost all the time, I reckon. Well, basically, by now, they say my interest in Hamish has doomed me in Adelaide. I don't think so. Having even tested the theory against the facts, I deeply believe one thing has nothing to do with another. There is no worse disrespect than violation of human rights, and that is what I endure for more than fourteen years in a row in Australia. In this case, I am entitled to disrespect whatever and whomever, and I believe this is just common sense, which would definitely be part of the contents of any court decision involving the matters at stake if all were adequately exposed. 

A psychopath who is not totally insane would like to be logically correct, so that they would use anything, I reckon. Being left only with the marginal all these years, as if there is no police, law or anything else, I try to debate, argue, and others, but we all know it is all hopeless. If we could finish with crime by simply exposing logical arguments, the laws would suffice or teaching/explaining those, right? 

It is a real shame. 

I think I am sure however that if it were not Hamish or Cameron, then it would be the color of my hair, the position of my clothes, and alike things, basically. Chances had I!

Ask any victim of atrocity why they suffer crime, and I believe that the answer is always going to be the same: I cannot defend myself from what they do, that is why. They knew that I would be able to do nothing. They chose me because I was the easiest possible target. 

Crime would not be called crime if it were something logical or passive of being logically supported instead of the opposite. 

A victim of crime cannot be blamed EVER for the crimes they endure. Crime is crime, and it could never be practiced. 

Before, in 2002, it was also my book on Christianity that caused what I endure. What is the doubt? Anything, everything, for as long as it looks as if crime can be practiced. Notwithstanding, when can crime be practiced? The answer is common sense: NEVER. 

If I am a person who never fails at work, who never lets anyone down, etc., which was definitely my case in that end of 2001, then the minimum we expect from society is respect for our bodies, turns, and basic rights, is it not?

If society there fails, then we would expect God or other human beings, better ones, to restore our rights, guarantee us justice, and punish those who are responsible as soon as possible, is it not?

I would think that not even one second of what I go through could possibly be acceptable, who would say more than fourteen years? 

No comments:

Post a Comment