|
Article Publishing
|
~ all humans are criminals theory |
This is not a theory, in the laymen sense: it's not just a hypothesis of what could be true. It is rather a theory that has proven facts surrounding it, similar to gravity: i.e. it is a theory that is true, and is not debatable, other than individual facts being debatable about the theory, or additional facts being added to the theory to further support it. But the general theory is true, and it's not debatable about whether it really is a correct theory; likewise, no one debates that gravity exists, they just debate particular mechanisms which it occurs.
All humans are criminals. The first state is delusion and denial: "no, only some humans are criminals, a small subset - if all humans were criminals they would all be put in jail"
This delusion is the first danger in understanding this theory, as a criminal reading the theory (all humans) will deny and outright reject the theory, because s/he is self conscious of their own criminal behavior and does not want to get caught as a criminal, so would never admit the theory is true.
The key understanding of why all humans are criminals is the theory of evolution as one part of this criminal theory: The two theories, evolution, and this theory, intersect often and share data between the two. Humans (and all animals rather) are born into a criminal system known as evolution. The basic principle is that in order to survive, one must be a criminal: run around killing other species to survive, and if you do not commit these criminal acts of killing other animals, you die of starvation, so criminal behavior is essential for survival. Hence, the theory of evolution itself starts off the criminal behavior and all humans are born criminals: the very first day a child eats meat of any kind, and thinks nothing of it because "it came from the store in a package" is the first day he is a severe criminal.
There were less criminal acts before this, but this is a severe criminal act: killing another animal (or eating a dead part of an animal without the animal's first permission to do so), and not being sent to court for murder of another species or putting an animal in your body and digesting it, without the animal's prior consent. Indeed the murder that took place was not as severe as another human killing another human, but it still was a murder of a species.
This will not be some Vegan rant about how we should not be killing animals, and the fact that humans kill animals for survival is not the only fact supporting the human criminal theory: this is just one small fact.
You either accept that you are a criminal, and learn from it and deal with it, or you reject it and play the innocent card similar to a liar in prison who says he never did any crime, even though there is plenty of evidence to support the fact he committed not one but several hundred crimes.
Looking at criminals who admit they are criminals (gangs for example) gives you a whole new perspective with this theory in mind: These people (gang members) are actually honest about their criminal behavior, and publicly advertise and fully admit they are criminals. People who go around in society pretending that they are not criminals (they may not be as severe criminals, but are still criminals) are dishonest, as they deny they are criminals. Some of the worst criminals are ones who you do not know are criminals and you have no knowledge of them being criminals, and their criminal behavior goes on unadvertised: at least gangs publicly advertise the fact they are criminals, and are being so honest it almost gives them an anti-criminal paradox status: honest criminals (severe oxymoron/paradox).
There is the ignorant unintentional criminal: the one who honestly does not even know he is a criminal, and actually believes he is not doing anything wrong. These are almost as dangerous as criminals committing intentional fraud, because the ignorant criminal who doesn't know he is a criminal, is in such delusion that he is unaware of his criminal acts. Take for example a Christian who goes hunting, and kills animals, and thinks nothing of it as he thinks some "loving" God put these animals here for us to murder (love and murder in the same sentence? That's God for you). So basically running around murdering other animals, is nothing to be ashamed of and is part of God's lovey dovey world, even though none of the animals ever agreed to the murder or gave consent, nor was it ever a fair fight since they do not have weapons - basically it's like going around killing disabled people without guns, because disabled people are not smart enough to own or operate guns. Now on the other hand take an Atheist (or a very aware Christian), who goes hunting, knowing he is doing something harmful and criminal, but still does it purely because he knows he has to eat and will not survive if he does not - and admits he is a criminal, or, at least tries in such a way to make the animal suffer the least: i.e. possibly wild hunting is more enjoyable for the animal then penning him up in a slaughter house and keeping him (veal) in a box for most of his life. The criminal who at least admits he is a criminal, can reduce his criminal behavior to less severe criminal behavior.
Criminal acts in business: businesses are very successful if you can get away with criminal acts which are loopholes in the law system, such as putting your business assets in other countries without taxation, while you perform business in a state that is taxed. So you find a way to pay no taxes by claiming your business is in another country, even though you perform the business in a taxed country. Without picking on anyone in particular, there are businesses that perform almost all their business in USA, but have their taxes setup so they pay very little taxes by operating as Swiss companies or other countries without as many taxes. The question becomes however, if the government itself is a criminal (run by humans) who is the criminal? the business avoiding the government tax, or the government itself? As all humans are criminals, what ends up happening is the criminal government gets into a hidden invisible fight, with the criminal business: everyone trying to avoid taxes is a criminal finding ways to get away with his crime, to defraud the criminal government: so if you are defrauding another criminal and he is defrauding you, what difference does it make? They are all nasty criminals. Sort of like if an animal you were hunting stopped and had a brain for a moment: he's murdering me, so if I take a nuke and blow him to pieces before he shoots me with his rifle, is this a criminal act or is he committing criminal acts against me so I have the right to commit a criminal act against him? What difference does it make? Everyone is a criminal, so why not commit more criminal acts recursively? Someone hits a kid in school with a book and breaks his nose, so the key resolving point in this is for the victim kid to go and do the same back, and shove a sharp pencil in his stomach.
Scientists are often criminals: science is full of intellectual property theft, to levels that no one would ever admit. Theories are stolen from others to levels that people would never imagine. Scientists would be the key people everyone deems as the most honest people of all, when it simply is not true. Scientists are under high pressure to come up with theories, and often this pressure causes them to steal from others, claim theories are their own which are not, and sometimes the theft is unintentional (delusional state of person thinking he is not a criminal) where he sort of knew he stole some parts of the theory from elsewhere but then forgot and thought it was all his own, or didn't realize he read a number of parts that helped him from another source which he never gave any credit to, but again forgot to credit the source.
Hollywood is full of criminals: The amount of stolen content in hollywood where they steal a story and do not credit the author is rampant. The Hollywood industry is a severe criminal in such a way that they can go around complaining about other people supposedly being criminals (Torrent users) while Hollywood steals millions of dollars worth of stories and does not compensate the authors. They will even justify it if they are caught in the act: "we just based the story on some of his story, it was never a direct theft of his story, we just took pieces from it, we do not owe anything." And likewise a torrent user can simply claim the same "I didn't watch the full DVD contents or extras, therefore, I just took pieces of your movie. Plus, I went to the washroom during the movie and skipped a few minutes, so I didn't even steal the whole movie because I never saw it all - and I do not distribute your movie to anyone for a fee, I don't sell it, I am not making money off it".
This is a TODO article. This is only an introduction, as right now, I simply do not have the time to complete this article. As with any theory, this will be supported with so many facts that it will not just be an article, but more than one article on the subject. This article, and theory, will need some more formal less humorous articles written about it to be taken more seriously, since the theory in fact is a serious theory: but I cannot stop myself from laughing about how absurd and delusional people really are and have to mock them.
|
|