Slashdot Mirror
French President Violates His Own Copyright Law, Again
I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "French President Nicolas Sarkozy has been caught violating someone's copyright again. This time, presidential services made 400 unauthorized copies of a DVD when only 50 had been made by the publisher. Mr. Sarkozy, of course, is the one pushing the HADOPI law, which would disconnect the Internet service of an alleged pirate after three allegations of infringement. This isn't the first time he's been connected to copyright violations, either. His party had to pay some €30K for using a song without authorization. If he were he subject to his own law, Mr. Sarkozy would be subject to having his Net disconnected the next time he pirates something."
Comment removed based on user account deletion
In this day and age are there still people who think that the laws apply equally to everyone?
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
Yes, we don't like the hypocrisy, but if you really don't believe in imaginary property then what he did isn't questionable at all.
I think there needs to be a balance struck between the rights of creators and users so that everyone comes out ahead. The idea that anything accessible should be shareable is clearly bankrupt, but without a viable alternative (without resorting to draconian laws) I fear that we are heading towards that undesirable outcome.
"Mr. Sarkozy would be subject to having his Net disconnected the next time he pirates something"
As president / head of France does it mean whole France would be disconnected ?
The world belongs to those who get up early. - I'm far from being the king of Earth then
Comment removed based on user account deletion
You don't really expect high ranking politicians to follow the law, do you? If you're american, you've had bush for the last 8 years, and this shouldn't be surprising. If you're european, this should be par for the course, and if you live anywhere else, you're not important (according to the USA or Europe).
is the fact that they removed the publishers name actually criminal?
It's all about getting punished. I'm sure this will be swept under the rug in no time, by the French RIAA to boot. You know, don't bite the hand that feeds you...
It's like ten thousand spoons, when all you need is a knife...
There's one thing that seems to be common in all those Right Wingers. They always want to set the most strict rules for the others, but for them exceptions can always be made.
Nicolas Sarkozy is just a puppet in the hands of corporations. He is too fragile to stand up for any civil right.
Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
Let's see, he's pushing a law that enforces copyright by punishing those whom violate it and yet can't keep his own people from violating it on his behalf?
Looks like the problem isn't as clear as he would lead you to believe if even his own staff and himself can't stay within copyright laws.
Not as I do!
DRM? No thanks, I'll just get it somewhere else...
Well he could write a book, that sounds very cultural, no? And it's someone who obviously has had a serious taste of foreign cultures, no? Sounds that he fulfills at least some of the requirements of a CULTURE minister.
Fascinating. Though he doesn't say how old they were, as has been pointed out in blogs on this, its not uncommon for an older man to use terms like young boy to refer to people in their teens and 20s. Also there is some question as to... what is too young? or is it about age or about power? The more damning admission for me is NOT age, but the fact that he knew he was in a world of slaves and forced prostitution.
Thats what gets me about the Polanski thing. So what if she was 13! A 13 year old has probably gone through puberty. Being attracted to 13 year olds and having sex with them is just human nature. Its the fault of stupid ideas in parenting that have caused a culture of sexually retarded 13 year olds. Or as was said in that kinsey movie (I don't know if its an acutal quote by the man) "In an uninhibited society, a 12-year-old
would know most of the biology which I will have to give you in formal lectures."
In any case... a paedophile is someone attracted to pre-pubecent children. He is CLEARLY not one of them.
On the other hand, he got her drunk and she didn't want to do it. Thats rape. Thats wrong at ANY age. I have seen blog post after blog post, and even now this man's defense of polanski who keep mentioning "sex with a 13 year old" and just seem to forget that it was RAPE. Why is sex with a 13 year old somehow worst than RAPE.
I find that disturbing.
The only saving grace here for him in my eyes is that it was so long ago. I see no real benefit in prosecurion of 30 year old crimes, unless the offender is believed to still be doing it.
-Steve
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Why would they want to follow the law? There are three reasons to follow the laws:
I am sure he and his staff could follow the laws if they wanted to. They just have no incentives to do so.
No seriously... a country does not suck because they have shitty representatives.
If they have enough shitty politicians their government might suck, but I don't know if I would be calling that particular kettle black
Have you even been to France?
This time, presidential services made 400 unauthorized copies of a DVD when only 50 had been made by the publisher.
He will just make it retroactively legal. It's ok. Nothing to see here. Move along now...
Has Comcast disconnected your Internet account? Same here. You can read about it at http://comcastissue.blogspot.com
Please state your nationality, so that we can search for similar news about your politicians and conclude that your nation sucks as well.
And btw saying that "France sucks" is flaming even if what you say about a single person is true. How in hell could you get a positive mod on that? Troll, flamebait and offtopic are all applicable to your post.
No seriously, google it:
And so I did....
French minister in 'boy sex' row
The Bad Life: A Memoir by Frederic Mitterrand (Author), Jesse Browner (Translator)
But I would also like to point out that people on both sides of the political fence are unhappy. From the BBC article:
Socialist Party spokesman Benoit Hamon told Reuters: "As a minister of culture he has drawn attention to himself by defending a film maker accused of raping a child and he has written a book where he said he took advantage of sexual tourism. To say the least, I find it shocking."
Marine Le Pen, vice president of the right-wing National Front, read excerpts of Mr Mitterrand's book aloud during a television interview, and said it left "an indelible stain on the government".
She called for the culture minister to step down.
"Resign, Mr Mitterrand and perhaps, afterwards we'll be able to give lessons to other people," she said.
Mr Mitterrand said it was an honour to be dragged though the mud by the National Front, and criticised the Socialists for making common cause with the extreme right.
I've lost all my marbles except one & It's fun to test angular & centripetal acceleration in my skull
Well, he is a homo, and confessed that he went to see male prostitutes in Thailland, and in no way underaged kids.
The French fascist right wing is exploiting this to make some political noise, trying yet again to link homosexuality and pedophilia.
I could blame him for many things, but certainly not for coming clean about seeing male prostitutes..
And given the recent US Priest pedophile scandal, I would say that you'd better STFU.
By the way, it's the minister that was sucked.
And don't forget this accusation is coming from extreme right.
That don't mean one must approve, but you have to know who you support.
Or rather, you mean France is good because they don't discriminate against gay people or perverts.
Seriously, you can make such a generalization based on the behaviour of ONE minister? Also, he wasn't buggering YOUNG Thai BOYS, just Thai males. Get your facts straight before trying to act retarded, cause you end up looking retar.... Oh wait...
We didn't make him culture minister, Sarkozy did.
Please don't mix up our joke of a governement with our entire country. The public opinion here is just as appalled as you are by this affair (even if the medias try to downplay it), this minister and this governement as a whole.
You (assuming you're american) had your G.W. Bush, we've got Sarkozy. I hope we'll get our Obama in 2012...
I have, and it sucked. You know that parody of EuroDisney that was on the Simpsons? Where the guy in costume was rather abusive and French? That actually happened to me.
What's amazing is that his book did not came in the store a few days ago. No, it cames a few years ago. Its content was not kept secret until today, tv news are radio talked about it. Frédéric Mitterand did not hide, and I did not hear a lot of voice complaining about that all this time. So, why now? Why not when he was given this charge?
I don't think it's worse, but I do think that having sex with a 13 year old is both predatory and pathetic, if you're a [physically] grown adult anyway. The brain hasn't fully developed at 13. At that age you lack the ability to make reasoned decisions as the same level as an adult, which is why we don't permit adults to have sex with them. I agree that 18 is arbitrary and that the laws relating to sex and age are capricious but I don't agree that restricting sexual congress by age is unreasonable. I do think though that a "three-year" or similar law ought to be in effect, and that children can be charged with a crime for having sex with children their own age is ridiculous. They may well need counseling, but unless it was rape, they don't need to be run through the system. Any excuse, though...
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
There is a difference between physical maturity and mental or emotional maturity. There is a reason why the age of informed consent is 18 years old.
France sucks because its president or one of its minister has done something bad ;-) ..... dude you should think twice before posting such smart thoughts !
Waouh, don't you think you are pushing generalization a bit too much here ? "Culture Minister" are not elected by the French, but chosen by the executive... so how do you connect the fact that he allegedly buggered young Thai boys and the fact that France is a pathetic country ? Do you believe everyone in France fully agrees with this type of behaviours ? I can't imagine you are that naive... or maybe you just like being a troll...
Thats what gets me about the Polanski thing. So what if she was 13! A 13 year old has probably gone through puberty. Being attracted to 13 year olds and having sex with them is just human nature. Its the fault of stupid ideas in parenting that have caused a culture of sexually retarded 13 year olds.
Stay away from my kids, you sociopath.
I can't believe I have to spell this out to ANYONE here on Slashdot, but there is a world of difference between having the PHYSICAL maturity to have sex, and having the EMOTIONAL maturity and self-actualization both to properly refuse sexual advances from an adult, and to handle all the consequences that can arise from sex.
Statutory rape laws exist because adults at the age of majority are in a position of authority over minors. This means that any sexual advance by an adult towards a minor is coercion, and any sex with a minor is ALWAYS non-consensual, moron.
Summary is incorrect. He would be disconnected the next time he is alleged to have pirated something.
Why doesn't the gene pool have a life guard?
And as you're all nodding your heads in agreement, please keep the parent's words in mind next time you're tempted to rail on what a terrible country the USA is.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Got to love how the people that are implying that France doesn't suck because of the actions of their politicians are getting zero scores. There's never a shortage of retarded Francophobes on the internet.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Probably because YOU were abusive first like here:
http://houghi.org/moving_pictures/gotcha_02.avi
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
France is a terrible country, the USA is a terrible country. That doesn't me the people are terrible, it just means that the status quo in these countries suck.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Polanski is a pedophile and anyone who sticks up for him is not much better.
I'll let this speak for itself.
Not in various US states and countries.
http://ageofconsent.com/ageofconsent.htm
Buckle your ROFL belt, we're in for some LOLs.
You evil, sick, piece of shit.
Scratch that. I apologize for insulting fecal matter.
sjc@carpanet.net
I have, and it sucked. You know that parody of EuroDisney that was on the Simpsons? Where the guy in costume was rather abusive and French? That actually happened to me.
If you relate yourself to the Simpsons, you probably deserve it to be treated like that.
Yes, and I can tell you that the French do indeed suck.
Very, very well.
I think you presume too much when you say "13 is immature" because it depends on the person.
I went to college with a 15-year-old and he was more mature than I was at age 19. And of course being in college, he had sex with coeds five years older than he. Although that was technically illegal (statutory rape), I don't consider it immoral. A young adult is still an adult and should be free to make his own decisions.
>>>The brain hasn't fully developed at 13.
If this was our standard, people would not be considered adults until age 25 - that's when the brain finishes making its final connections. I think the onset of menarche (typically 15) is a better point to call someone an adult.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
No, but I've heard the Frank Zappa song, "In France".
If he were he subject to his own law, Mr. Sarkozy would be subject to having his Net disconnected the next time he pirates something.
Does it really?
Because it doesn't appear that the internet was used to illegally distribute that copyrighted material. And I don't think HADOPI is that stupid (or smart, if you lean that way).
ID: the nose did not occur naturally, how would we wear glasses otherwise? (apologies to Voltaire)
Too bad that most Western law insists that the law apply equally to everyone. Lawmakers would write simply the greatest laws . . . if they themselves didn't have to be bound by them.
We'd have the greatest family values, the greatest IP protection, the greatest right to life . . .
If only the lawmakers could be above the laws . . .
Oh, that was hard to check... second Google hit goes to Wikipedia...
"Geimer testified that Polanski gave her a combination of champagne and quaaludes,"
"Polanski was initially charged with with six counts: "Furnishing Quaaludes to a Minor", "Child Molesting", "Rape by the use of Drugs", "Sodomy", "Oral Copulation" and "Unlawful Sexual Intercourse". These charges were dismissed under the terms of his plea bargain, and he pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of engaging in unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor."
You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
>>>a country does not suck because they have shitty representatives. If they have enough shitty politicians their government might suck
France's democratic government has sucked for about 200 years. Other than a few bright periods of time, they've had tons of lousy leaders. Napoleon was the first - Sarkozy's just the latest in the string. I feel sorry for the French.
But then I remember they have topless beaches, and I figure it's not such a bad country after all. ;-)
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Maybe if you, and averyone who thinks like you, could teach their children about sex and their consequences when they are physically mature to suffer those consequences, they would be mentally mature and would be informed enough to decide for themselves.
Just maybe.
But no, you just keep your children in bubbles. Never daring to tell them about sex and its consequences and letting them start playing with their physically mature bodies without the knowledge to to know what they are doing.
You are the monsters. You are the ones that keep their children in obscurity only for your fear of them becoming adults. You treat them like children, they will act like children.
Who wants to dig up his cables and cut them next time we think he breaks the law he wants in place? I'd be up for it, if I lived in France, and I think it would be a pretty great message.
Positively modded because France dose suck. lol
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
Just fine him, personally...
$100,000.00 per dvd copy
$100,000.00 per song, on each dvd copy...
400 unauthorized copies - $40,000,000.00
10 songs used as soundtrack to the movie, copied 400 times - $400,000,000.00
One nice fine of roughly $440,000,000.00 payable immediately...
The President of the French Republic is not going to have his Internet service disconnected. I may not know much, but I know that.
If this was our standard, people would not be considered adults until age 25 - that's when the brain finishes making its final connections. I think the onset of menarche (typically 15) is a better point to call someone an adult.
You don't have a daughter, do you. I think 25 is fine.
Polanski raped the girl even after she asked him to stop. There's also the whole plying her with alcohol and slipping her a quaalude beforehand, too. It wasn't _just_ statutory rape.
Statutory rape laws exist because adults at the age of majority are in a position of authority over minors. This means that any sexual advance by an adult towards a minor is coercion, and any sex with a minor is ALWAYS non-consensual, moron.
Bullshit.
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
He said "Boys" only after people went after him did he back up and say that he just "Calls them Boys". He went to Thailand, He then paid a slave owner money to bugger (What are most likely underage) "boys" that were sold and have no choice in the matter. He is a sick fuck when you look at it in the best light. As far as the Catholic priests that have been caught in the U.S. well fuck them too, and we are putting them in jail and suing the shit out of the Church. Its a good thing that in France they do not have any Catholic churches. Wait ummmm. Well I am sure that after seeing the problems with the priesthood in other parts of the world the French are investigating throughly. Ummm. Nope. I think that it is You sir who should STFU. Just saying.
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
its not good enough to consent
you also have to be considered psychologically mature enough to know what exactly you are consenting to, what it implies, what its effect on you will be in terms of self-esteem, etc
physical maturity is not the same as psychological maturity
even if the 13 year old girl, perfectly sober, had agreed to have sex with polanski, its still rape, because by any coherent standard, a 13 year old is not ready to fully understand the implications of the arrangement. 15 year old? 17 year old? look: there's some 11 year olds who are more mature than some 51 year olds in certain aspects of life. but by any coherent standard, 13 year olds by and large simply don't understand what the hell is going on PSYCHOLOGICALLY (they understand what id going physically) when it comes to sex. this is valid observation for a binding legal standard by any rational effort
yes, some archaic societies and historical ones pretty much agree 11 year old girls were fair game for marriage/ sex/ etc
and these same societies also had things like slavery, absolute monarchy, cannibalism, etc. so there's no validity in pointing to brutal societies to justify burtality
in other words, we live in a modern advanced society. as such we recognize concepts like psychological maturity and informed consent and human dignity. and we respect them, and we incorporate them in our legal codes and we punish people who violate the concepts. why? so that we can stay being a modern advanced society. so should you respect the concept of "informed consent", not if you wish to remain a part of this society, but if you want to consider yourself a modern rational human being who understands and respects human dignity and who has a human conscience
or don't. and we'll rightfully punish you for your willful transgressions
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I'm fairly certain most kids learn about sex well before they're physically mature enough to have it; I know I did. Understanding it and being able to make the decision to do it are very different. If you would let your 13 year-old children have sex with their peers, let alone adults, then you are the monster, you idiot.
Apparently wizard is not a legitimate career path, so I chose programmer instead.
You're judging an entire country on the basis of two individuals? Pathetic. Also, wonderful job karma whoring by replying to yourself.
I'll agree with you on the age of 13. At 13, most have just barely began puberty. By 14, though, most of them are well into puberty and at 15 or 16 they've just about passed it if they haven't altogether.
Anyway, this whole cultural thing about post-puberty teens still being children is fairly new, from a historical standpoint. It didn't use to be uncommon in other cultures for people to be considered adults, and even get married, at the ages of 13, 14, 15 years old . Mary and Joseph were probably nowhere near 18 years old (regardless of whether or not you believe it's a true story).
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
Off topic, but I can't seem to understand why Polanski is being defended at all. Defending him is like saying money should buy you out of crime. Yes, the defendant received large sums of money and wants the case dropped...but he still commited a major crime. Is it OK to murder when you have money? Rape? DUI Manslaughter? Dog fighting? No, it is not.
Polanski is a criminal who deserves to be punhished under law like any other pedo. He is not above the law.
All of my discussion is based on the law. Is the law just or sensible? I think it is. Some interpretations of this law are not, like the teenies sending pics to each other and going to jail over it. Malicious and irresponsible interpretation of a law by some lawyers or judges does not make the law bad.
but now everyone's talking about Thai boys and what Polanski did, it's completely buggered.
Could someone on the staff please go through this and hit all these berks with Off Topic -1?
shin phantomflanflinger
I like this, it has a good colour-coded graphic (that's the North America article, but there are similar ones for other continents, and the graphic shows the world but has the U.S. states individually marked).
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
Their "Culture Minister" wrote a book about buggering young Thai boys.
What a joke of a country.
That's right trust information that came in vicious attacks by an extreme right party of holocaust deniers. The guy may be guilty, but I'll reserve judgment until he's stood before a jury of his peers instead of a pack of rabid dogs like the Front National.
If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
yes, there are 13 year olds who are more mature than some 33 year olds on some issues. but your average 13 year is not psychologically mature enough for informed consent with an older person. they simply don't understand the long term psychological effects on their self-esteem, their happiness, their sense of identity, etc. maintaining these aspects of self are often not even concepts most of them recognize yet
15 year olds? 17 year olds? where do we draw the line?
well, we have to draw it somewhere
look, there are guys who can speed 110 mph down the highway all year long and not get in an accident. most of us can't do that. is it fair to the guy with amazing advanced driving skills that the speed limit is 70? no. but that's not the point of laws: the point is a standard of justice for society, not the gifted drivers. nor preternaturally mature youngsters
because what you have to understand about human beings is that even though most of us can't drive 110 mph, a lot of us would say that yes, we can do that. its called hubris, we all suffer from it. at 110 mph speed limits, we'd have a lot of accidents because its a simple human failing that we overestimate our abilities, underestimate our simple human fragility. plenty of 13 year olds would even say "yes, i'm ready for sex with an elder" according to the same human failing of overestimating their abilities. and then later, when they are building their sense of self-esteem and thinking about who they are and what they are here on this planet for, they've done themselves permanent damage: "i'm just a monkey hole. i'm not a future scientist, i'm not a future leader. i'm a port of call for the horny." this is damage to the psyche, they aren't ready yet to incorporate something as potent as sex properly into their self-image. a 13 year simply has no INFORMED CONSENT about what sex means yet to them
so you err on the side of caution, and you make the age of consent the late teens
sure, there are historical societies where age of consent like 10 years old. these same societies also had things like human sacrifice, slavery, cannibalism, absolute monarchy... in other words, pointing to what they did in brutal times is no justification for brutality
and sex with with minors IS brutality. we live in a modern advanced society. we respect concepts like psychological maturity, human dignity, informed consent. this helps us remain an advanced society
so respect the rules, or be punished for transgression. but fear of being punished shouldn't motivate you to respect the laws against having sex with minors. you yourself, if you have a human conscience, should simply understand that sex with minors is a transgression against your own human conscience, your own abilit yto empathize with the fact that 99% of 13 year olds are not psychologically ready to handle sex with an adult. you need to understand that, and understand why it is simply wrong
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/322/7294/1095
The median menarcheal age was 12 years 11 months (95% confidence interval 12 years 10 months to 13 years 1 month). The percentages of girls who reported having had their first period by their 10th, 11th, or 12th birthdays were 0.8, 3.6 and 21.7, respectively; 11.8% had their first period before leaving primary school.
These are uk figures for girls born between 1982 and 86 from the british medical journal as you can see its much younger than you think.
The UK age of consent is 16 as is the age of marriage drinking and smoking are both 18.
And yet, historically people of that age were not considered children. For example, in Judaism, males become entirely culpable and responsible for following Jewish law once they reach the age of 13, and females once they reach the age of 12.
Monster? This was the norm until the last few centuries.
Polanski probably isn't a pedophile in the sense he doesn't like prepubescent girls, as a 13 year old would have hit puberty. But in our society, 13 is still too young for people much older than her. Don't point to older societies or views because you can go talk about cavemen times all you want but keep in mind you would be lucky to reach 25 or 30. Age is much more spread out now and a 13 year old should be hanging out with other 13 year olds, not creepy old men. It is always disgusting and predatory when an older man finds his way in with a young girl who just hit puberty. Sexually, the attraction may not have been deviant but the motives and acts were in the sense that he abused his position of authority to corrupt a minor. As long as 13 year olds don't have adult rights and have to obey adults and are still treated like children, they are not of age to have sex with (unless you are the same age or within 3 or 4 years).
Touche.
But we both have to admit that its not JUST our elected officials who make things the way they are in our countries.
If half of America wasn't scared to death of gays of getting married, we probably wouldn't have had our retarded Bush Jr. fucking up our country (and the world).
Bush did not elect himself (well, not the second time anyway).
And neither did Sarkozy I would think.
Just so you know, G.W. Bush is not a Jr. Referring to him as such shows you overwhelming wealth of wisdom.
Maybe 13 year olds can have sex with other 13 year olds and you can stop crying in your basement because they get more action than you..hm?
"By the way, it's the minister that was sucked."
Well played.
(:
One of these days, I am going to flip out. When I flip out, I'll be back in five minutes.
Yeah, well, that was 2000 years ago. A lot of other things have also changed. Including lifespan. And scientific advances. And not dying from diseases we now see as trivial. But cool.
So because one Frenchman has a taste for little boys, that proves that all Frenchmen therefore have the same perverse behavior? One bad apple spoils the whole truckload?
Don't quit yer day job for a career in statistics or set theory. Well, maybe statistics, considering it's abused about the same as what you did.
I'm making an assumption that by that definition you'd still be considered a child.
If you do have a daughter I pity her, because you are overly protective. As long as she makes her own decisions at it I would seriously advise you to let her go, certainly at an age earlier than 25. Heck, why not make it 35, you'll have no grand kids but that's insignificant in regards of protecting her, no?
also considered things like human sacrifice, slavery, absolute monarchy, cannibalism, kiri situ gomen, etc., to also be perfectly valid
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiri_sute_gomen
just because some archaic society or some historical society did something brutal, is no justification or rationalization for accepting something brutal still going on today. they still do cliterectomies in west africa. and? this is simply wrong, by any logical and lucid attempt to abide by the concepts of human dignity and a human conscience. we live in an advanced modern society, we make progress. pointing to something more brutal and going "see? somebody else is being brutal, so it should be ok for us to do it to": does that really strike you as a valid reasoning process?
there's a story about some lady who beat her 2 year old to death in the local paper here today. since that lady beat her kid to death, it should be ok for me to beat my kid to death. wtf? does that make any sense to you? well, pointing out brutal things that they did in historical times as validation of doing brutal things today is the same sort of logical fail on your part. and engaging in marriage/ sex at physical maturity with minors, rather than psychological maturity, is obviously a historical brutality you should simply condemn, not rationalize
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Yes.
And it sucks.
Well, what's worse? Having a president you did not vote for command the murdering of tens of thousands of people, wrecking whole countries?
Or that culture minister and that president, that the french have.
You decide.
Joke's on you anyway.
P.S.: Protip: I'd go with both ;)
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
You'd have a point if he ran on an anti-gay platform, but he didn't.
Seriously, the alternative was Al Gore, that guy is a nut job. I'd still vote Bush over Gore, he should just stick to flying his private jet around the world to give talks about environmental responsibility and leave us alone.
Kerry was horrible also, but at least he wasn't crazy like Gore. He was weak though, and fake, and it is hard to get past that, especially just a few years after 9/11 and right in the middle of the hunt for Bin Ladin. Weak was not what we wanted. The Dems just didn't put up any good candidates after Clinton, and people were unhappy with the way Clinton finished up his term.
Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
> I don't think it's worse, but I do think that having sex with a 13 year old is both predatory and pathetic,
> if you're a [physically] grown adult anyway. The brain hasn't fully developed at 13.
When has the organ that changes over the course of your entire life from birth to death "fully developed" in your eyes? As a 31 year old myself, I would put it somewhere around 26 years old.
As for "predatory and pathetic"... I guess that depends on how you see sex. I don't tend to see it as bad or dirty. Its just something that people do with eachother, and hopefully both enjoy. Danger wise, on par with getting into someones car. In fact, with some people, its probably far less dangerous than getting in the car with them. Especially since we have simple medical protocols for dealing with the most likely possibilities.
The "dangers" are mostly overblown FUD, and I think comes out of the irrational fears of parents, who want to delay as long as possible their children having to experience the emotional pain that can come from falling in love with someone and having the relationship go sour and end.
I tend to believe that emotional growth only comes through those pains and experiences and as someone who did delay that until his 20s, I can say that I don't think I benefited from that. It took me until the age of 30 to mature emotionally enough to have a good stable relationship of the kind most people are starting to have at 24.
Will 13 year olds get into relationships with older people that will cause them pain. Yes, they will. Its part of being human, growing up, and mating. I think we vastly underestimate them to think that they need to be protected from such things and do them harm by delaying their natural development.
-Steve
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
the statement "only 50 had been made by the publisher" is wrong.
The figure of 50 is actually referring to the number of copies given to l'Elysée, on request of l'Elysée.
FYI, the DVD was a reportage on Mr Sarkozy (I won't write Mr the president ...) made for a public channel (France 5), realized by a private editor.
About the cover modification, no article (in French or English) details if the editor references were removed from the opening credits or if it had been purely and simply cut. On one hand, it would be stupid to not cut the generic, but on the other this also an alienation of the original material.
So now, you pirates, you vils downloaders, who is the boss ?
Thats what gets me about the Polanski thing. So what if she was 13! A 13 year old has probably gone through puberty. Being attracted to 13 year olds and having sex with them is just human nature. Its the fault of stupid ideas in parenting that have caused a culture of sexually retarded 13 year olds.
As somebody asked on BBC R4 a couple of days ago, would you say the same thing if the person who had confessed to statutory rape were Senator Polanski the Republican politician, Corporal Polanski serving in Iraq or Father Polanski the Catholic priest?
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
Yes, and I can confirm that it does indeed suck. Its not just the politicians, most of the general public can be considered a bunch of douchebags as well.
Have YOU ever even been to France?
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
I am not fond of my minister of culture nor my government. But that is false. The book is not about his sexual relation with young Thai boys but about his life and the things he never told anyone before. It is like "Confessions" by Rousseau.
There is a chapter where he says he paid for sex with male young ADULT. I read an excerpt and there is no confusion possible. Perhaps he had relation with minor (that I don't no) but the book does not say so.
An article (in french) on this subject : http://www.rue89.com/2009/10/07/ce-que-frederic-mitterrand-a-vraiment-ecrit
i was talking about an adult having sex with a 13 year old, clearly, that's what i was talking about
you are talking about minors, both minors, exchanging nude photos. this shouldn't be punished at all
nor should a 19 year old be punished for having sex with a 17 year old, another form of lunatic overly rigid thinking
but please dude, i see it in internet discussions all the time: don't listen to what someone says or writes and try to apply what they are saying as broadly as possible in order to find something offensive in what they say. then you are just looking to be offended for some weird psychological reason, rather than actually try to communicate with and understand people
what i said doesn't even begin to remotely apply to the horrible situation you describe
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
It's because the French people allow a Frenchman with a penchant for little boys to remain their Minister of Culture.
That suggests the French people are pretty fucked in the head. Even if the average Frenchman does not want this person to be in that position, it is the French people who created the situation that allowed the man in that position, and keeps him there. The blame for the government of any democratic system rests on the people who put that government in place - that is the voting population. That holds true for the US, and I think we are soon going to feel the impact of electing a president who has absolutely zero business experience in the middle of a financial crisis.
One bad apple spoils the whole truckload?
Yes, actually, it does. You realise that old saying (One bad apple spoils the bunch) came about because if you found an apple spoiled with worms in a bucket full of apples, you could no longer trust the apples in that bucket, because worms spread.
Do you even think before you write?
Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
I don't recall Bush promoting little boy rapping bastards as 'culture minister'.
If you get Obama in 2012 it'll be awesome, your government's political parties will have a majority so powerful there is no way anyone can stop them from doing what they want, and yet nothing will continue to get done because they can't agree with themselves.
I guess you haven't been paying attention to the actual politics in America, but Obama's presidency and the Democrat majority in congress has been nothing short of a joke. They have their entire team in office, everything is under their control, and they still can't get anything useful actually accomplished.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Napoleon was never democratically elected. And most of his successors weren't either. France has started democracy in 1789, yes, but it was a monarchy for most of the 19th century until Napoleon III lost the french-german war in 1871.
what is too young?
there is this 'age divided by two plus seven' which seems reasonnable
I would rather see his head disconnected....
The UK age of consent is 16
18 if the other person is in a position of trust, such as their teacher (at least in England and Wales, not sure about Scotland)
drinking and smoking are both 18
Not so simple. As Wikipedia correctly points out:
Children under 5 must not be given alcohol unless under medical supervision or in an emergency (Children and Young Persons Act 1933, Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act 1937). However, children aged 5 and over may legally consume alcohol in their own home or someone else's as long as they are under the supervision of an adult.
The minimum age for the purchase of alcohol is 18. People aged 16 and 17 may consume wine, beer or cider on licensed premises (pubs/bars/restaurants) with a table meal. In England & Wales, an adult must order. In Scotland, no adult is required to be present. The legal age for the purchase of alcohol from an off-licence (store/supermarket) is 18 (16 for liqueur chocolates).
Purchasing alcohol on behalf of a minor is illegal in Scotland, England and Wales. This means acting as the young person's agent.
18 is right for buying tobacco products, but I don't know what the law is on whether younger people can smoke tham.
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
I hope we'll get our Obama in 2012...
NO YOU DON'T!! Obama is a puppet, and the strings are held by the same people that held Bush's strings. Its scary when most of the population thinks a puppet isn't a puppet, especially the formerly politically active young adults (who are now part of the Obama Youth). I want Bush back so people still think the Government is full of liars and cheaters... because it is.
I think its as much the idea that other countries are doing america's dirty work and arresting and extraditing people to america, when the reverse rarely happens. i.e. america is generall unwilling to extradite its own citizens but generally very happy to extra people from all over the world and subject them to possibly the harshest sentences in the western world.
SURELY NOT!!!!!
No seriously, google it:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=france+culture+minister+young+thai+boys&cts=1255098089473
He actually wrote a book about it and they still made him culture minister.
I'm not flaming.
France really does suck.
Here's the kicker, no matter how much we trash the French here, only a few of them will be able to defend themselves, since only a few of them even read English. As a European from a country that has its own native language and English as secondary language I have the right to say A) Ignorant idiots, B) I have never in my life had one single negative consequence caused by the fact that I speak English, C) Ignorant idiots. Oh and I speak 4 languages, 3 from childhood and one "by choice".
I am the lawn!
You (assuming you're american) had your G.W. Bush, we've got Sarkozy. I hope we'll get our Obama in 2012...
Don't hope for that too hard, the treasury might not be able to handle it.
Even if you were right, what is the intent of pointing it out? Are you trying to omit fact and rational thought by looking down upon his opinion just because he is, again assuming, under the age of 25?
Your post contributes nothing to this discussion.
A lot of other things have also changed. Including lifespan. And scientific advances. And not dying from diseases we now see as trivial.
Just because we've made the best part of life last longer doesn't mean we should have to wait longer before we can enjoy it.
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
Thank you but I know the law. Actually, according to the Attorney General of my state (she was questioned about this on NPR recently) the age of consent here in MA is 16.
I happen to disagree with the law, and think it, and the attitude that sex is bad and dirty and something people must wait for, is HARMFUL. You may disagree with me, but I don't recall calling you a sociopath and moron for believing otherwise.
Frankly, while I might have sex with a 16 or 18 year old if they made an advance, I couldn't imagine being interested enough to make an advance on them myself. I can't remember the last time that I talked to anyone under 22 and actually found them that interesting. However, I try to make allowances for people who think differently than me, as long as they are not trying to coerce me into behaving how they want.
I am of the opinion that sex is like many experiences in life. You are not ready for it until you have been having it regularly for a while. Probably not until after a messy emotional breakup really. I don't see the advantage in delaying what is really , needed life learning.
I think there is something to be said for the old greek concept of pederastery. Why is it preferable that a young person have sex with other inexperienced young people? I think there is something to be said for being guided through an experience by someone older. We are not talking about little children here, we are talking about people at what was traditionally considered marrying age.
Young girls and older men, historically, IS the norm. It used to be encouraged. Despite the negative press that the entire traditional mode of marriage (that is, arranged marriage, doweries etc) it DID have some benefits and did NOT always produce unhappy couples. In fact, some people in such relationships actually LIKE arranged marriages. Go figure. (I had a wonderful talk, on this topic, with the friends of a jewish girl that I was trying to get a date with)
We have a different society today, as I said, I have no interest in taking on the immense responsibility of guiding a young virgin through learning about sex and love. Hell, I have no interest in an older virgin (my first girlfriend was a 26 year old virgin... 7 years older than myself at the time...) however, I don't see why its good that nobody is allowed to. I don't think these issues are really that cut and dry.
My sister was dating an 18 year old (who years later, through random events, became my best friend) when she was 14, a 32 year old when she was 16 (who became the father of her child at 19). She turned out just fine. Admittedly, it often seemed like she was the mature one guiding them, but, hey, to each their own.
Besides... its just sex. Sex, relationships, love, breakups, they are all part of growing up. Everyone goes through it, and everyone takes a different path. I think thats wholly appropriate and healthy.
-Steve
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Even if you were right, what is the intent of pointing it out?
You misunderstood him. What he meant was "Quiet, you. Children should be seen, not heard."
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
The state of their personal satisfaction with life is frickin' irrelevant. What matters is the HE IS STILL MINISTER OF CULTURE. Until he resigns or is fired, Sarkozy and his party are condoning him.
In fact, with some people, its probably far less dangerous than getting in the car with them.
LOL. Point in case: My dad had 3 kids with my mom (myself among them), but he won't get in the car with her. He does the driving.
No, I am assuming that he is male.
i can get drunk, and drive home. a lot of times, i'll probably make it home and not damage myself, my car, or anyone else
"See, I don't doubt that a lot, even most, such relationships are not built upon true consent, but acting as if this could not happen and making one involved party look like hellspawn surely is not the way to deal with a problem in this day and age."
the issue is law, legality. not accommodating the hypothetical and unlikely
we make driving while drunk illegal, simply because of the great risk and jeopardy you are engaging in
certainly, the hypothetical good outcome situations you describe above exist. but, as you admit, consent is not the norm (nevermind INFORMED consent: as in the ability to properly psychologically understand the full psychological ramifications of the situation)
as such, much like the drunk driver, you are engaging in behavior which is just too dangerous to the minor's psychological well-being, and the situation must be made illegal, and must be punished. even if you have good intentions and are very careful, you can damage the minor in ways you don't even anticipate, control, or understand. just like the drunk driver who made it almost all the way home without damaging anything before being caught still deserves to be punished
it is the willful disregard of the risk and dangers to the minor's psychological well-being you are engaging in that is the problem. it is a transgression of human conscience, and it deserves to be punished. and you need to recognize what kind of fire you are playing with, and how your hypothetical situations you describe are wish fulfillment fantasies, and nowhere near the reality of the vast majority of such situations
and EVEN if you were a person who could make such fantastical scenarios happen, how do we tell the difference between you and the average asshole predator? we can't, and so we don't. because it is not incumbent upon society to bend over backwards to accomodate your rare and special gifts at initiating a good special sexual experience with an underage person. it is incumbent upon YOU to recognize society has a duty to protect its minors from predators, and there's simply no way to tell the difference between you and the predator
does that seem unfair to you? hey, i'm going to die someday, i think that's unfair. life has plenty of ugly truths you need to accept rather than fight. here, the truth you need to accept is that your wish-fulfillment scenarios are rare and mostly fantasy, and the vast overwhelming realities of the situations of sex with minors is a brutal transgression and THAT is the basis society must act on when formulating its laws. you need to deal with that
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
1. I don't even know what movies he made. Until this recent news, he was an absolute nobody in my world.
2. I have LONG argued that the attitudes of our society is major reason that early teenagers are so woefully unprepared for what is happening in their bodies.
3. I actually do think there is potentially merrit in the older person/younger person relationship dynamic (my own wife is 7 years younger than me, my first girlfriend was 7 years older than me, my own sister has consistantly dated men between 6 and 16 years older than her... and has since she was 14)
4. I do believe that emotional maturity comes NOT from age but from living through emotional pain. Such delays in dating and sex left me having to deal with issues in my mid to late 20s, and wreaked havoc on my personal and professional lives.
5. 13 was marrying age for a lot longer than 18 has been. Men being attracted to newly sexually mature girls is an instinct reaching back to our mammalian ancestors. The only difference with us is, we have convinced ourselves that teenagers should be treated like (and allowed to act like) kids AND we are capable of projecting our feelings and experiences of pain onto our view of the lives of others, and through empathy and love find ourselves wanting to spare others of those pains (even when its what they need)
However.... the answer is yes, it would be different. (WHAT!?!? :) It would be different for none of those reasons. It would be different for a Congressman or Priest because they are people who make the laws and preach the "sin". For one of them to break the law or break their moral code of no sex outside o fmarriage (or at all for a priest), that makes them hypocrites.
Much like, I would not support outing a congressman for being gay... unless he were actively working against the interests of the gay community. Then his personal preferences vs his legislative actions would, together, say something about his character, where simply being gay wouldn't.
I hope that answers your question.
-Steve
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
I don't recall Bush promoting little boy rapping bastards as 'culture minister'.
boy
Yeah, I'm not a huge fan of Lil' Bow Wow either, though "bastard" might be a little harsh.
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
The brain hasn't fully developed at 13.
If this was our standard, people would not be considered adults until age 25 - that's when the brain finishes making its final connections. I think the onset of menarche (typically 15) is a better point to call someone an adult.
Well, I don't know about the US, but over here (Uruguay), it's implicitly recognized that people under 25 are not fully mature / adults.
:P )
:)
Several things require an age of 25 or older - for instance, running for the equivalent of a House seat, which I have wanted to do for some time and am able to do for the first time this year ( not that I have any chance of winning
That, of course has nothing to do with physical maturity
There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
Marine Le Pen, vice president of the right-wing National Front, read excerpts of Mr Mitterrand's book aloud during a television interview, and said it left "an indelible stain on the government".
How many people read that as an inedible stain? Just me? Ok, I'll bugger off to Thailand then...=(
No seriously, you suck French Farts.
>>>>>If this was our standard, people would not be considered adults until age 25 - that's when the brain finishes making its final connections. I think the onset of menarche (typically 15) is a better point to call someone an adult.
>>
>>I'm making an ASSumption that by that definition you'd still be considered a child.
Yes you are. I'm 35 and an adult no matter how you look at, sexual maturity (14), legal maturity (18), or mental maturity (25).
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
*WHOOSH*
(I wondered if the smiley was required or not... apparently it was.)
Who does he think he is, George W. Bush or something?
And yet, historically men would get away with wife-beating and child abuse. We've come a long way, let's come still further. Tradition is never itself sufficient justification for a thing any more than the ability to do it. I'm not too impressed with Judaism, or any organized religion with which I am at all familiar.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Ahh, another victim of Poe's Law.
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
That's a far cry from all French citizens supporting him when some are actually demanding exactly that isn't it? Shouldn't they deserve some recognition on your part?
I've lost all my marbles except one & It's fun to test angular & centripetal acceleration in my skull
I'm sorry but I still feel that this should be prosecuted lest we reward someone for evading the law. He should also be prosecuted for having fled. Had this been you or I we'd have been locked up and forced to appeal or somesuch. He should not be rewarded for having had the means to evade for so long. As I recall he even admitted guilt and was going to go for a plea bargain - he fled because he was told that the judge might not be allowing his sweet deal. Again, had that been you or I we would have been toast. I do not care how famous he has managed to become - he should not be given any special treatment. If he felt that he was getting something "special" due to who he was when this first went down then he should have gone through the same process you or I would have been forced to. I have no sympathy for him frankly....
Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
>>>What he meant was "Quiet, you. Children should be seen, not heard."
+1 funny.
If he lives in the EU he may be in violation of the Charter of Rights. Quote: "Children shall have the right to such protection and care as is necessary for their well-being. They may express their views freely. Such views shall be taken into consideration on matters which concern them in accordance with their age and maturity."
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
some say life begins at conception, and to destroy an embryo is equal to murder
some say infanticide is morally acceptable, that a baby doesn't have a conscience yet
of course, the truth is somewhere between these extremes. where exactly? i don't know. its a gray area. society tries to make a good guess: the first and second trimester ok, the third not ok, for example, and of course, some people are still upset. some people are always upset. and the standard and the law between "murder" and "disposing of a fetus" will shift over time as opinion changes over time
this is reality, this is the truth, its messy and complicated, and this is the way it will always be
the rigid people, the unthinking partisans, are the ones who have a number in their head (15 instead of 18... why not 12? why not 21?), and won't budge
"YOU are the one who is rigid in your thinking. You don't seem to understand that these arbitrary laws cause more harm than the supposed-creeps running around. The laws ARE the problem. If they were set at a more realistic level (15 instead of 18) then that boyfriend/girlfriend would not have spent a night in jail simply for photographing themselves."
"YOU are the one who is rigid in your thinking. You don't seem to understand that these arbitrary laws cause more harm than the supposed-fundamentalists running around. The laws ARE the problem. If they were set at a more realistic level (2 months instead of 5 months) then that pregnant mother would not have committed a sin by killing an innocent human being."
"YOU are the one who is rigid in your thinking. You don't seem to understand that these arbitrary laws cause more harm than the supposed-drunk drivers running around. The laws ARE the problem. If they were set at a more realistic level (18 instead of 21) then that drinking college student would not have spent a night in jail simply for having a good time."
etc., etc., ad nauseum
zzz. drama as old as time. i will choose true wisdom by saying you have to pick a dividing line somewhere, and its arbitrary to some extent, but that's real life: messy and grey, and you can't satisfy all the screaming twits like yourself who don't admit its complicated and grey. some decade it will younger. some decade it will older. you make your best guess, and make that the law, AND MOST IMPORTANT: you recognize that having NO law at all IS FAR MORE UNJUST THAN AN IMPERFECT ONE
really, that is the truth right there: an imperfect law is much better than no law
and besides moron, you don't think prosecutors and judges have leeway and understand where the law is imperfect and they should err on the side of compassion? sure, some judges and prosecutors and judges are assholes and have no compassion and will treat a 19 year old sleeping with a 17 year old the same as a 41 year old sleeping with an 11 year old. so would that be your new retarded reason now to have no laws: sometimes people in charge are assholes? please, give it up, grow up loser and understand life is more complicated and gray than your RIGID thinking portrays it
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Maybe I'm mis-remembering, but I thought one of the criticisms of the French law is that he loses his net connection the next time anyone accuses him of piracy, not necessarily the next time he pirates something.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
So according to you, Spain and Argentina are countries of monsters (age of consent is 13), Not to mention Canada (which allows 12 years old to have sex with their peers).
Let me assume that, in spite of resorting to ad hominem, you are capable of reasonable discussion of complex and emotionally loaded topics.
The real problem is not sexual relations and age, it is exploitative relations (sexual or otherwise), which should be illegal at any age.
I agree that most modern 13yo lack the necessary emotional maturity and understanding and therefore an adult entering into sexual relations with them will be, ipso facto, exploiting them. However, that is a consequence of how society treats and shelters young people and not of their age per se.
So firstly, I suggest that, regardless of the law in your jurisdiction, you spend the time and effort to educate your children to the point where they are able to to give (or, more likely, withhold) their informed consent. It will be much better for them if they choose to avoid sex until they are ready for any consequences that may arise instead of being held back by an arbitrary number set by the legislation.
And secondly (and I'm going to get a lot of heat for that), I believe that a cookie-cutter approach is not suitable and instead of a hard-coded age, the decision should be made on a case-by-case basis, should the minor in question prove to be mature enough to make these decisions. After all, assuming that all people automagically gain insight and wisdom precisely on their 18th birthday (or a different one, based on their geographical location) is just silly.
I don't recall Bush promoting little boy rapping bastards as 'culture minister'.
May I remind you of this fine fellow named Dick Cheney ? How about Donald Rumsfeld ? They may not be pedophiles but they have fucked up the lives of much more people than Mitterand.
If you get Obama in 2012 it'll be awesome, your government's political parties will have a majority so powerful there is no way anyone can stop them from doing what they want, and yet nothing will continue to get done because they can't agree with themselves. I guess you haven't been paying attention to the actual politics in America, but Obama's presidency and the Democrat majority in congress has been nothing short of a joke. They have their entire team in office, everything is under their control, [...]
That's already the case for us. The opposition is a pathetic joke, Sarkozy has control of the governement and the media, he can do whatever he wants without any risk of backlash. He gets things done, problem is he's headed in a completely wrong direction.
[...]and they still can't get anything useful actually accomplished.
That's not the impression I'm getting from here, the healthcare reform seems much needed despite the public outcry (which I don't really understand BTW), but what do I know ? Guess I'm just a retarded european...
Franco-Prussian war. It doesn't take all of Germany to kick the snail munchers' butts.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
And you got international currency.
That and the fact you weren't bombed made you a world power.
And you never thanked us.
"Look, whether or not it should be legal for teens to have sex with adults, even you should see that it should be legal for them to have sex with each other, I'd think."
i agree 100%: sexual experimentation among teenage peers of roughly equal psychological maturity is the road to psychological maturity. duh. where did i say otherwise?
that's a totally different subject matter than what we are talking about, so i don't know what your point is
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
>> I'm 35 and an adult no matter how you look at, sexual maturity (14), legal maturity (18), or mental maturity (25).
I'm considering your suggestion that:
>> I think the onset of menarche (typically 15) is a better point to call someone an adult.
According to it, you can only claim adulthood if you are female.
Not to mention that your figure of 15 is off:
Less than 10% of U.S. girls start to menstruate before 11 years of age, and 90% of all US girls are menstruating by 13.75 years of age, with a median age of 12.43 years.
You want a "bougnoule" as president?
He's junior compared to the senior one, who was also a total asshole. Coincidence I'm sure.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
You should try being an Arab visiting the USA.
I believe that a cookie-cutter approach is not suitable and instead of a hard-coded age, the decision should be made on a case-by-case basis, should the minor in question prove to be mature enough to make these decisions. After all, assuming that all people automagically gain insight and wisdom precisely on their 18th birthday (or a different one, based on their geographical location) is just silly.
How would you suggest one would legally prove maturity? 18 is not a magic number; it's a reasonable age to assume one is capable of making adult decisions.
Apparently wizard is not a legitimate career path, so I chose programmer instead.
Their "Culture Minister" wrote a book about buggering young Thai boys.
What a joke of a country.
what can you say, they're french!
> you also have to be considered psychologically mature enough to know what exactly you are consenting to, what it implies, what its
> effect on you will be in terms of self-esteem, etc
I would agree if I felt that this was possible. I don't think that anyone who hasn't been through these experiences CAN be "mature enough to know". Just being older doesn't convey maturity. My point of view is one that came through delaying sex until I was 19. I can tell you, at 19, I did not know exactly what I was consenting to. I still wouldn't say I was raped.
> yes, some archaic societies and historical ones pretty much agree 11 year old girls were fair game for marriage/ sex/ etc
>
> and these same societies also had things like slavery, absolute monarchy, cannibalism, etc. so there's no validity in pointing to brutal > societies to justify burtality
Being wrong about A doesn't mean they are wrong about B. They also drank water, drank wine, put tattoos and piercings on each other etc. The fact that they did it doesn't make the act wrong, anymore than you should be guilty of murder because you are friends with a murderer.
> in other words, we live in a modern advanced society. as such we recognize concepts like psychological maturity and informed consent and
> human dignity. and we respect them, and we incorporate them in our legal codes and we punish people who violate the concepts. why?
Agreed, except, I think we are crazy to think that we have totally nailed it on what any of those mean. You have to draw lines somewhere or else, by your rational, even selling a soda or talking to a person who isn't mature enough to understand the consequences of habitually drinking soda or getting into conversations.
As I said, I do not believe, based on my own experiences, that Age = maturity. In fact, I think that these restrictions do nothing but delay maturity since the experiences that they try to prevent are actually the sorts of things that help a person mature. So essentially, I agree totally on informed consent but... I don't believe its always possible. I also don't think sex and love are things a person needs to be protected from. They are healthy, normal progressions in a persons life, and should be treated as such.
Realize, you are talking to someone who has no interest in anyone under 22 (the age my wife was when I met her), who has, within he past several years, had sex with 19 and 20 years olds and found them too lacking in maturity. However, I know girls who have consistantly since the time of mid teens dated men 6-16 years older than them. I saw nothing wrong with it then (and even stood up for my 15 year old sister to my mother when she was upset that my sister was dating a 30 year old).\
Frankly, I think people who see sex as something negative that people have to be protected from as THE PROBLEM.
-Steve
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
July 287th, 1914: Start of WW1
September 1916: First panzers used by britains
January 19th, 1917: Zimmerman note
April 6th, 1917: USA enters WW1
Spring 1918s: USA starts producing panzers
November 11th, 1918: End of WW1
But I guess for someone who visited an american "school", wars don't exist until YOU participate and Panzers don't exist until YOU use them... man, how can a whole country be so f*cking self-centered?
The MAFIAA is a bunch of mindless jerks who will be the first up against the wall when the revolution comes
Dammit, that means I have to give up my 29 year old girlfriend. (I'm 54)
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
I really think this whole "sex with teenagers is predatory" is nonsense. Sex isn't such a big deal - the more you think it's so important, the more protective and squeamish you'll be.
As far as nature goes, sex can take place as soon as puberty is entered. It's just a function of modern society that has kept increasing the legal age of consent. It's your imagination that makes you think it's "dangerous" or "harmful" - it aint no such thing and aint no big deal either.
It's just a biological function like eating. Our ancestors used to bear children when they were much much younger with no terrible mental scarring. It's just that it was accepted and so was harmless.
Repeatedly. French people can be somewhat parochial, and some have racist tendencies. So it's not that different from the US except that the French attitude towards sex vs. violence in media is healthier.
Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
I fail to see how your strawman is relevant to the issue I raised. I pointed out that historically, 13yo were able (and often expected) to assume responsibilities of adults. The fact that it is not the case today is not necessarily good progress. Equating that with child abuse and wife beatings is just silly.
I don't recall Bush promoting little boy rapping bastards as 'culture minister'.
No, he had the good sense to hide the boy rape in Abu Ghraib. Those French, they are so in your face with everything.
Using that reasoning you could say that America just sucks because they let their President and the evil puppeteer behind him (Cheney) bugger an entire country (Iraq).
Of course, that would be a stupid thing to say too as quite a few Americans (>50%) didn't vote for President Shrub and didn't want to invade Iraq because they had nothing to do with 9/11....
Written in the also sucking United Kingdom where we also let a tosser with a god complex lie his way into that pointless, stupid and immoral war.
1. "As I said, I do not believe, based on my own experiences, that Age = maturity. In fact, I think that these restrictions do nothing but delay maturity since the experiences that they try to prevent are actually the sorts of things that help a person mature"
the issue is not arresting development. the issue is preventing experience to outpace the psychological ability to incorporate it. then it destroys you. would you show a gory horror movie to a 3 year old? well what age is appropriate? you can probably even find some 3 years olds that could handle it. none of that is the point. the point is: gradual immersion into experience to promote maturity. for example: sex between similar aged, similarly mature teenagers is fine. or: discussion of why the bird on the ground isn't moving is appropriate for a 3 year old. all of these are rough guidelines. they can be extended. but you have to admit the extremes are real, and the extremes are dangerous: a 13 year old in a gangbang, a 3 year old watching "hostel".
2. "Frankly, I think people who see sex as something negative that people have to be protected from as THE PROBLEM."
absolutely. sex is 100% natural and normal. sex is never the issue: coercion and abuse of power is the problem
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
"Mr. Sarkozy would be subject to having his Net disconnected the next time he pirates something"
As president / head of France does it mean whole France would be disconnected ?
Would anyone notice?
My favorite quote doesn't fit into 120 characters. Now no one will like me.
The topic so so complicated that it fills lengthy wikipages.
I believe that the issue should not be played down, and the aspect of being able to determine ones sexual life -- and the inability to do so up to a certain age -- is key.
NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
- Gallic Wars
- Lost. In a war whose ending foreshadows the next 2000 years of French history, France is conquered by of all things, an Italian.
- Hundred Years War
- Mostly lost, saved at last by female schizophrenic who inadvertently creates The First Rule of French Warfare; "France's armies are victorious only when not led by a Frenchman." Sainted.
- Italian Wars
- Lost. France becomes the first and only country to ever lose two wars when fighting Italians.
- Wars of Religion
- France goes 0-5-4 against the Huguenots
- Thirty Years War
- France is technically not a participant, but manages to get invaded anyway. Claims a tie on the basis that eventually the other participants started ignoring her.
- War of Revolution
- Tied. Frenchmen take to wearing red flowerpots as chapeaux.
- The Dutch War
- Tied
- War of the Augsburg League/King William's War/French and Indian War
- Lost, but claimed as a tie. Three ties in a row induces deluded Frogophiles the world over to label the period as the height of French military power.
- War of the Spanish Succession
- Lost. The War also gave the French their first taste of a Marlborough, which they have loved every since.
- American Revolution
- In a move that will become quite familiar to future Americans, France claims a win even though the English colonists saw far more action. This is later known as "de Gaulle Syndrome", and leads to the Second Rule of French Warfare; "France only wins when America does most of the fighting."
- French Revolution
- Won, primarily due the fact that the opponent was also French.
- The Napoleonic Wars
- Lost. Temporary victories (remember the First Rule!) due to leadership of a Corsican, who ended up being no match for a British footwear designer.
- The Franco-Prussian War
- Lost. Germany first plays the role of drunk Frat boy to France's ugly girl home alone on a Saturday night.
- World War I
- Tied and on the way to losing, France is saved by the United States [Entering the war late -ed.]. Thousands of French women find out what it's like to not only sleep with a winner, but one who doesn't call her "Fraulein." Sadly, widespread use of condoms by American forces forestalls any improvement in the French bloodline.
- World War II
- Lost. Conquered French liberated by the United States and Britain just as they finish learning the Horst Wessel Song.
- War in Indochina
- Lost. French forces plead sickness; take to bed with the Dien Bien Flu
- Algerian Rebellion
- Lost. Loss marks the first defeat of a western army by a Non-Turkic Muslim force since the Crusades, and produces the First Rule of Muslim Warfare; "We can always beat the French." This rule is identical to the First Rules of the Italians, Russians, Germans, English, Dutch, Spanish, Vietnamese and Esquimaux.
- War on Terrorism
- France, keeping in mind its recent history, surrenders to Germans and Muslims just to be safe. Attempts to surrender to Vietnamese ambassador fail after he takes refuge in a McDonald's.
My favorite quote doesn't fit into 120 characters. Now no one will like me.
Look, for relatively centrist parties, we had a choice between Sarkozy and Segolene Royal. Segolene spent a good portion of the campaign repeatedly putting her foot in her mouth and showing complete lack of preparedness for the job. I didn't like Sarkozy but he looked like the marginally better choice. Think of it as having to choose between Richard Nixon and James Buchanan.
Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
"What is mentally damaging is telling someone they're still a dumb kid, they don't know anything, and they were abused (OMG, really? like they can't decide whether or not they were, and they're too dumb to figure it out) by this old pervert (who they thought cared about them, and who they cared about too). No, since they're just a kid, they're too dumb to even figure out that this person is a perverted creep and they were abused."
you're describing patronization and condescension as the real crime, as a worse crime than child rape
people are often overempathetic without understanding shit. so if my neighbor gets hit by a drunk driver, and i go over and i whine and make googoo eyes and give big hugs and talk about the evil drunk driver to his parents, most people are going to think "shut the fuck up and leave me alone so i can deal with this on my own terms". but according to you, me, the touchy feely neighbor and my inappropriate intrusions is somehow worse than what the drunk driver did. wtf? you have no fucking sense of proportion or context or scale. to you, al qaeda flying airplanes into office towers isn't a crime... because gw bush is an asshole. that's exactly the same thing when you consider patronizing and condescending adults to be real crime, not the child rape. hey, how about this einstein: patronizing condescending creepy adults are a problem, AND a child rapist is a problem (obviously a lot worse). how does that radical concept strike you? pffffft
i don't even no where to begin with the rest of your drivel
look, here's an analogy: would you show a 3 year old the horror movie hostel? why not? well, when he turns 7, he magically is able to handle it? no, maybe its 8. who fucking cares what arbitrary number society picks: laws are messy and complex and sit in gray areas, but the truth is NO law is way worse than an imperfect law. you understand that at least, right? so when can a kid handle the movie hostel? 7? 8? 9? who fucking knows, but her's a truth you can't deny: its certain a 3 year old fucking can't handle it! right? so where do you draw the line? 15? 12? 21? 18 doesn't cut it for you? fine. but you agree a 13 year old is too fuckign young for informed consent, right? who fucking cares that laws are imperfect and paint over gray areas: NO law is far worse!
if you understand that analogy, maybe you can begin to understand how fucking stupid the res tof your drivel is
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I would suggest a similar procedure that is used to determine whether a person is fit to stand trial. Some sort of a psychological evaluation.
I respectfully disagree. If it was a generally accepted number based on scientifically valid research, there would not be such a broad variance among different jurisdictions. The age of majority varies between 9 and 25, age of criminal responsibility between 6 and 18, age of consent between 12 and 21.
If they don't understand it, then you should teach it better.
Of course most kids know about sex before 13, kids are not sexless. The problem is in education and parents that want their kids to be kids forever.
You have two options:
-Teach them well and make them understand it.
-Let them find it by trial and error.
They are your kids, I'm sorry for them.
Maturity is aquired by experience.
What is magical is to expect children to aquire maturity prohibiting them everything. With no experiences ther is no way to gain maturity.
Not only that, some things cannot be said around minors, so they can't even learn theory, much less aquire exprience, and even less gain maturity magically.
Perhaps I should have said Robespierre instead? (shrug). Even since 1871 France has had a rocky ride with its leaders.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Just for the record: I do have a daughter. She's turning three in two days. 13 is far too young. 15 is also too young: at that age, kids don't even know what they don't know, making them think they're not only geniuses, but invincible. Depending on the kid, 17 can still be dangerous, or they can start to grasp the world that is bigger than themselves. I don't believe in "protection, protection, protection, turn 18, complete freedom." It has to be something given slowly from about 10-12 (depending on the kid) all the way through when they're ready to handle the world (which could be 18, though the general US idea of drinking at 21 has some merit here). Of course, there will have to be a gradual changing of that protection, too: at 13, I run the protection for her. By 18-21, I merely am there for her, but by then, she has to learn to be the primary source of her own protection. How to do that, I don't know - I've been scared now for three years already.
And of course her brother (Gérard Royal) was a terrorist.
we're not talking about relationships
we're talking about coercion
a child is not psychologically able to handle coercive attempts at forcing sex. this genuinely damages the child by convincing them they deserve to be coerced, that this is normal. we all have standards of behavior, standards of how we treat other people and how we deserve to be treated. if we allow children in situations where a person is allowed to treat them badly, and they have no way to properly understand or incorporate this, they begin to think that's normal. and they continue to be abused, and, most importantly: they become abusers themselves
because how you treat others is not limited to these sexual situations. if you teach a child that its ok to coerce someone through power into doing something you want them to do, why shuoldn't they pull a knife on someone when you want their wallet? different situation, but same use of force over someone else. its the same power situation as polanski, and it IS important that the polanski situation involves a child because a child is still developing an idea of what those standards of behavior are. an adult, meanwhile, understands those standards of behavior: they are more mature
"I don't think that psychological ability is developed until the experiences happen.... and... destroys you? Please."
yes, a child does not know what the standards of behavior are in intimate situations. teach them coercion and force is ok, and you have a person who now has years to go to unlearn the bad situations they were exposed to. absolutely: it destroys you, it causes psychological harm, maybe permanently, if you are a child. why don't you understand this simple concept?
"Psychological pain sucks. However, you don't build a tolerance for pain by avoiding it."
maybe you can understand an analogy:
there are people who can hold their breath underwater for 7, 8 minutes, or more. they train themselves with gradual immersion, they build their lung capacity, they build their red blood cell count. now you throw the average person in a car underwater for 7 minutes, without any training, you have a dead person. so just as i said before, i'll repeat to you so you finally understand: "the issue is not arresting development. the issue is preventing experience to outpace the psychological ability to incorporate it. then it destroys you."
do you understand the analogy?
i will assume you are 25 for arguments sake. a con man could come up to you on the street and attempt a con on you today that you will now brush off. i will also with certainty that there are many cons a con man could not make you fall for even at the age of 12... but i say with equal certainty that there exists a set of cons that the 12 year old would fall for that the 25 year old you does not. cons involving psychological trickery, sudden force, trust building, etc. do you deny this?
if you understand the truth of that, maybe you can begin to see where you have strayed on this basic idea about psychological maturity and damage. these are real genuine serious concepts, and you dismiss them. you are forgetting your younger self
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
You little french man really think Obama's a good guy? Look at what he DOES instead of what he SAYS. It's the polar opposites, on way too many occasions. Practically speaking, it's going like it was Bush's 3rd season so far.
And concerning your shitty government... it's your country, fight for it! Arrange demonstrations and goddamn vote. Nothing you do probably has very important consequences but it's very important that you do it neverthless.
(I'm not a fucking yank btw)
Look, I'm not trying to tell you how to raise your daughter, but by the age of 13 she'll know all about it and there's a good chance she'll have experimented already. Don't be caught by surprise. I'd even say I'm all for encouraging chastity, but recognize what's coming.
Hell, I was raised by very conservative Christian parents, and was homeschooled, so I actually didn't know much about it until we had "the talk" in my teen years. But even I remember fooling around as a curious (probably – it's so long ago I don't really remember) ten or eleven year old with a girl whose parents were friends of my parents (we looked but didn't touch; I'd been raised strictly enough that this alone was enough of an infraction to give me pause). My younger brother, OTOH, found out about the more delicate sex when we heard him yell from all the way across the house "HEY, WHERE'S YOUR PENIS?" – apparently he and a little girl friend of his had decided to go potty together. You think you can protect your kids. You can't.
Anyway, that's my own somewhat trivial and perhaps slightly embarrassing anecdotal experience. YMMV.
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
P.S: You sound like a great dad; I'm sure your daughter will turn out fine. Good luck. :)
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
and it's no suprise he supported Roman Polanski.
Service is being cut off from individuals....form a company and get ISP service through your company. The ISP will just charge businesses more than an individual. It's a racket....
"Only one thing, is impossible for god: to find any sense in any copyright law on the planet." Mark Twain
I have two daughters and one son. I think 15 is pretty Ok.
You're right. Teenagers can all have sex with each other without creepy old men breaking into the circle of newfound love and excitement. A 13 year old can have sex with someone just as not ready as they are.
Obama has to prove he's really different from his predecessor. When a litta frenchie call upon americans to consider as not that ugly if not criminal things touching his/her ego as a citizen fellow of probable pedophile and pseudo tolerant français, yes, that's the joke of the day! after the nobel prize a guy who's so far spoken, spoken and spoken...had "won"!
your nephew's father? your sister?
dude, you have issues. and judging by your hesitant threat in a followup comment to kill someone, you're obviously still working through these issues
good luck on your psychological journey, wherever it may lead
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
You can take Obama now if you like before he completely ruins America
Yeah, well, I never was really talking specifically about young/old relationships in my original post (though the guy I was replying to was, I suppose).
However, I do know one thing: if you do discover an ongoing, consensual, 15/30 year old relationship, breaking it up and making the kid testify against the adult and throwing the adult in jail is going to do a hell of a lot more emotional damage than the relationship ever could – even if it soured and/or the kid grew up and realized they were young and naive.
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
Who made Sarkozy president?
No sig for you!!
I do not know a European leader more despicable than Sarcozy. I guess the scoundrel Berlusconi can overpass him.
His hypocrisy truly does not have borders. I know 100% of /.-ers won't care about ban of hijab in French schools in hypocritical contrast to so loudly declared allegiance to "liberte".
Now this, this you WOULD appreciate, right? So "when they came for Muslims, you kept silent" and "now they came for you".
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
France doesn't suck. The only thing to remember is that, in France, the country does not kill its own citizens. The culture minister isn't a pedophil, he is just gay ... And it's not a crime, here, in Europe.
Don't forget that people who said that the culture minister had relations with young Thai boys are from racist politics ...
Men just suck!
A man wrote a book about buggering young Thai boys.
What a joke of a gender.
Old people just suck!
Someone over 60 wrong a book about buggering young Thai boys.
What a joke of a generation.
Bad arguments just suck!
A member of a population wrote a book about buggering young Thai boys.
Therefore the whole population sucks.
What a joke of an argument!
Yes, it led to the brutality of the Roman Empire, where everyone was abused and therefore everyone became an abuser. Yes, let's go back to that.
Yes, nobody has ever become an emotional cripple for life or a dangerous criminal because of a sexual experience in their past... No families have ever been destroyed because of "just sex". Nope. Never.
Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
That's not the impression I'm getting from here, the healthcare reform seems much needed despite the public outcry (which I don't really understand BTW), but what do I know ? Guess I'm just a retarded european...
We can understand your confusion about that...
Part of it is that people -
are afraid of things getting worse.
are afraid of higher taxes.
are afraid of government in general.
are happy with what they have.
???
(!people) but really it's media driven. (it makes for good drama)
are hearing what insurance companies are paying them to hear.
Most of those (people) reasons are valid given history. Doesn't mean we shouldn't suck it up and TRY but then change is hard and scary.
Hope this helps,
Let's make a mountain out of a pizza. The President will not be subject to disconnection from the net, because (a) he didn't produce the dvds and (b) the DVDs were not pirated over the net.
...
Next bullshit article
Am I the only one that noticed that in general, the older the age (green/yellow), the more developed that nation is?
Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
Oooohhh... did I poke your distortion field of ignorance? Cry me a river.
What part of "fact is fact is fact is fact is fact" don't you understand?
Do you really first need the blood of children on your hands, before you stop looking away?
Because actually, you did not start a civil war to throw out a government that deliberately murdered others for own financial profit. So you already got blood on your hands.
I hope you will live forever. With images of those dead people haunting you until the end of all times. (Or until you do something against it.)
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
the law has to exist as a sledgehammer with false negatives (still better than no law at all) because we don't have the resources to bring in child psychologists every time a teenager considers having sex. or that the teenager is even going to be interested in being involved in this bizarre imposition of government bureaucracy on a fleeting personal situation. this is not some arbitrary limitation of my invention that i'm trying to impose on you, i'm asking you to consider the fact that the law is limited by hard truths about reality, and so it must stay as a crude instrument because you simply cannot refine it any further in the situations you are talking about. i'm asking you to accept the ugly truth that our laws sometimes create suffering by being so rough, but they can't be refined any further due to simple limitations of reality, and no law at all creates yet more suffering. you have to accept some things about life that are ugly, but unavoidable
if you can inform me how to create an unerring giant sexual maturity evaluating bureaucracy, and how to somehow inject it into fleeting, quixotic, deeply private moments in a teenagers life, then i will concede the law can be made more refined. until then, you have to try to accept what i am asking you to accept. and also accept that most judges and prosecutors are not completely evil morons (although some are) and they try to be compassionate. the law is not a computer program. it is interpreted by human beings. and this helps immensely (it also hurts in some ways to, since us human beings are certainly at least as imperfect as our legal system if not more)
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
It was an biography in which he mentioned having sex with "boys" of an unspecified age. It's not clear whether that meant young men or something else, but he claims they were within 5 years of his own age (which I don't necessarily believe).
In any case it certainly was NOT "a book about buggering young Thai boys" and your conclusion based on that claim is absurd.
You sir, are a grade A troll.
Jesus christ, take it easy.
If a 15 year old has a consensual relationship with a 30 year old and is perfectly okay with it, where's the harm?
Yeah, she's young and naive. Will the relationship work out? Most high-school relationships don't; of course the relationship will probably sour eventually. Sure, she might get older and realize she was just young and naive at the time. Those sort of things are part of life.
However, which is going to cause more trauma: the relationship, or the shitstorm that occurs when people find out, the girl has to testify against the guy, he gets locked up in prison for 5 years on charges of "rape" – statutory, but we still use the word "rape". STATUTORY, i.e. "the law says it". In other words, the very name implies "the law says it's rape (but it's not really)". Oh, and besides which, not only was she "raped", but she wanted it to happen, she liked it, so that means it IS "her fault" no matter how we try to tell her it isn't her fault and "he did it to you".
I'd say the relationship causes NO trauma. NONE. No more than ANY relationship, and then only if it eventually breaks up, which is a fact of life. The shitstorm, on the other hand...
Whereas your "analogy" (yes, I understand the concept) is wholly different, because I guarantee the 3-year-old is going to be traumatized by the actual viewing of that movie (which I've seen, by the way). Whereas, consensual sex is not traumatic in-and-of itself.
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
Europe would like a word with you.
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
> ...nothing will continue to get done because they can't agree with themselves.
Which is the best you can hope for from government.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
MOD PARENT DOWN: Off-topic / Flamebaiting / Troll!
No seriously, how immature are you?
Technically, he didn't do something wrong since this law is not yet applied. But he did what we (french) are all doing these days : to make hundreds of copies before the decre is published in the "Journal Officiel" (Official Journal) ;)
Who decided which representatives are the ones we get to choose from in our "elections"?
Similar to the upcoming US election results
Eh, I won't hold people responsible for the acts of their relatives. I don't think Billy Carter's ethics and behaviour were an indication of Jimmy Carter's, and there's many more examples like that in history. Segolene made plenty enough gaffes by herself to disqualify herself in my eyes. I don't just mean allegations in the Sarkozy-friendly press, I mean massive blunders on the campaign trail for the job of President, in front of television cameras.
I thought Sarkozy looked like a G. W. Buisson because of his media ties, but I was hoping he would do less damage than Royal would. Overall I still think that's true. Royal would have made France a global laughingstock within the first year if she'd continued at the same hopping pace (one foot in mouth, remember) she had during the campaign.
I would have much preferred de Villepin and still hope that may be an option in for the next presidential election. I'd even be satisfied if the socialists could come up with a competent candidate.
Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
People in the United States allowed a man who repeatedly declared that he had a mandate from, was chosen by, an invisible imaginary overlord to be their President for eight agonizing years. He managed to get elected not once but TWICE... even after four years those citizens hadn't recognized their error. Even after another four, the verdict still wasn't exactly a landslide victory for a replacement... some people STILL think he was in fact chosen by a god. How fucked up is THAT?
Worms can only spread so far; that's why I deliberately chose TRUCKLOAD for my metaphor. Mitterrand can only taint the apples in close proximity to him; the rest of the truckload is fine. The French people got screwed and manipulated by their own political system in the same way that Americans have. I suspect that, if asked, a majority of the French people are just as disgusted by the continued presence of this little-boy-loving pervert as is the OP. They might ultimately have to foot the blame for being suckered, but that doesn't mean they support him. Is the Culture Minister even an elected official? If he's appointed, that certainly shifts the blame significantly.
you are consenting to me kicking you in the face with a steel tip boot
there: if you reply to me, i have every right to kick you in the face without consequence, because you replying to me CLEARLY is binding legal unambiguous consent that you wish to be kicked in the face, it absolves me of any crime
but even if i kick you in the face, that is nowhere near the real crime. no, the real crime is the horrible patronizing people expressing sympathy for your wounds and calling you a "victim". this is horrible psychological damage nowhere near the damage of being kicked in the face. and even worse, that anyone would have the arrogance of putting me in jail for "assault." assault!? you clearly consented to being kicked in the face when you replied to me
you're such a fucking moron you probably think i'm being serious
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
that you actually think the process of dealing with a crime is worse than the actual crime is a statement of such colossal stupidity that i hope for your sake i am just falling for an elaborate troll here. for if you honestly believe what you wrote then that makes you a certifiable low iq asshole
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Don't assume others feel the same. I had dinner recently with a friend and his 15 year old lesbian daughter, and neither of them had any problem with the topic of sex and who is having it with whom at diner. In fact, she was probably the most pleasant, well adjusted, and mature 15 year old that I have had the pleasure of running into in the past decade.
-Steve
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Bush killed hundred of thousand of people in Iraq and Afghanistan, and had hundreds of people raped in Abu Ghraib. Certainly much worse than what that fucked up son of a bitch pedophile Mitterrand.
What a fucked up country.
Plus Frédéric Mitterrand is a buddy of Sarkozy, who is a typical neo-con, another great US invention. You can keep them.
Anyway, all things considered I'm glad of this scandal and Polanski's because it pits Sarkozy's far right party against the extreme right party of Le Pen. Sarkozy got elected by sucking up to the xenophobic, authoritarian fringe. Now it's gonna be clear that he loves pedophiles and rapists. Might help get rid of that supreme scumbag in 2012 before he can ruin the country, Bush style.
I disagree. I think the reason young adults are so confused is that we have had such a sexually closed culture. Its not "polite" to talk about. Its "dangerous" for kids to know about. ooooh scarey. Its no wonder that by the time they are 13 and have had maybe one quick health class on the topic (that was my experience), they know jack shit. They know what their friends tell them, and the silly little qips that pass for "education".
Knowledge is power. Don't ever hide your own sexual relationship with your wife from her, let her grow up knowing that its normal, and healthy. The most important thing, from all the people I have known and seen, is that she feels its not taboo to talk about it. Any of it. Be it attraction to women, or how to properly put a condom on a penis. Arm her with that knowledge, because if you don't, her peers will disarm her with their faulty knowledge.
Anyway, I am not a parent, but I have seen a few different kinds, and grown up seeing kids in different households, and, from everything I have seen, the less taboo it is, the less enticing it is. The more she knows, the more safe she can be when the time comes, and the greater the likelyhood that she will tell you and not feel ashamed when something does happen.
That is unless you want her to fall for lines like "You can't get pregnant the first time".
-Steve
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
The hell is wrong with you?
A 13 year old has probably gone through puberty.
No she hasn't, she has _started_ puberty.
It's a process, not an event.
She could be "mature for her age", but that still means she is 13 and you are 46 which makes this an unequal relationship, because even if you were "immature for your age" you wouldn't be nowhere near 13!
I also never hear people claim that "I should be allowed to have a relationship with Mary, because we are soulmates and share so much. We have these deep talks and everything!". or "I should be allowed to have sex with Dan because we have this relationship where we share everything and to share our bodies would deepen our meaningfull relationship".
All I hear is "I should be allowed to stick my penis in her, because she winked at me seducively"
I say let Mary have sex with Dan - they can learn how to do it together and even if it's Dans first time, and Mary has been sleeping with all boys from her class, she will not nearly be as manipulative of him as you would be - even if you intention is to "make love" and not "rape".
If your aim is to punish offenders for wrongdoings, you will not accept any statute of limitation on any crimes. There's just no reason to if that's your only goal. You'd rather have offenders realize that there will almost certainly be consequences for their actions and that there's no easy way of escaping them. This approach is not based just on the idea of justice, i.e. retribution, but that the punishment will produce a deterrent effect. I will leave it as an exercise for the reader to determine how well that works for individual categories of criminality.
If however your aim is rehabilitation of the offender's behavior, it will often make sense to have a statute of limitations. If there are no recent cases of misbehavior to prosecute then quite likely (or at least possibly) the behavior has not persisted.
I am however not going to pretend that I've formed a particularly well formed opinion on whether it applies in a case such as Roman Polanski's, so I won't moralize on that subject.
Sarkozy won because he controls the media. He said waaay more stupid shit than Royal. He had no program but tax cuts for his coke-snorting, whore-banging, Rolex-wearing buddies while Royal had a detailed program, and SHE was depicted as the one without a program.
And Sarkozy is not a centrist. He ran on Le Pen's platform of xenophobia, and economically, he's FAR right wing, despite his recent conversion to moderate capitalism due to the financial crisis. Just think that in the summer of last year, he was in London praising the UK's deregulation, the same that brought down the whole fucking system! And now he's lecturing on the evils of unchecked capitalism, the son of a motherfucking bitch.
Wake up, for fuck's sake!
And so am I. Pointing out that the far right is criticizing him is a rhetorical ploy. Mitterrand is a douchebag, he needs to go. If he could just take down Sarkozy with him that'd be nice, too.
The evidence is irrefutable; Mitterrand wrote that in a book, and it's not taken out of context. The term used is even more specifically damning; he used "gosses", which is only used to mean young kids, as opposed to "garcon" which can also be taken to mean "young man."
> Hell, I was raised by very conservative Christian parents, and was homeschooled, so I actually didn't know
> much about it until we had "the talk" in my teen years. But even I remember fooling around as a curious
> (probably - it's so long ago I don't really remember) ten or eleven year old with a girl whose parents were
> friends of my parents
Meh, my parents were like, the people who could hang with the hippies or the squares (you know, smoked pot when they were younger, never did acid, have records of music from woodstock, but didn't go). Lapsed catholic and baptists. Very liberal, do as you want. When my wife told my mother that we have an open relationship, she actually asked a few questions and that was that, she had no problem with it. No lectures about sex or morality. (though, when we mentioned contemplating a Star Trek themed wedding, she didn't take that as well, at first)
Anyway... you would think I got "the talk". I learned about sex from health class, biology class, and the internet. Maybe they didn't think I needed it since I was kinda shy and not dating at the time? But they NEVER actually tried to have "the talk" with me.
-Steve
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
by just conveniently ignoring the reality of the subject matter, and inventing a wish-fulfillment fantasy life, and even confuse totally different subject matter, like say, your typical teenage crush and sex with minors
we're not talking about relationships
we're talking about coercion
a child is not psychologically able to handle coercive attempts at forcing sex. this genuinely damages the child by convincing them they deserve to be coerced, that this is normal. we all have standards of behavior, standards of how we treat other people and how we deserve to be treated. if we allow children in situations where a person is allowed to treat them badly, and they have no way to properly understand or incorporate this, they begin to think that's normal. and they continue to be abused, and, most importantly: they become abusers themselves
because how you treat others is not limited to these sexual situations. if you teach a child that its ok to coerce someone through power into doing something you want them to do, this colors their entire perception of life in general. why shouldn't they pull a knife on someone when you want their wallet? different situation, but same use of force over someone else. its the same power situation as polanski, and it IS important that the polanski situation involves a child because a child is still developing an idea of what those standards of behavior are. an adult, meanwhile, understands those standards of behavior. a child DOES NOT, moron
a child does not know what the standards of behavior are in intimate situations. teach them coercion and force is ok, and you have a person who now has years to go to unlearn the bad situations they were exposed to. absolutely: it destroys you, it causes psychological harm, maybe permanently, if you are a child. why don't you understand this simple concept?
maybe you can understand an analogy:
there are people who can hold their breath underwater for 7, 8 minutes, or more. they train themselves with gradual immersion, they build their lung capacity, they build their red blood cell count. now you throw the average person in a car underwater for 7 minutes, without any training, you have a dead person. the issue is not arresting development. the issue is preventing experience from outpacing the psychological ability to incorporate it. otherwise, it destroys you
do you understand the analogy?
i will assume you are 25 for arguments sake. a con man could come up to you on the street and attempt a con on you today that you will now brush off. i will also with certainty say that there are many cons a con man could not make you fall for even at the age of 12. but i say with equal certainty that there exists a set of cons that the 12 year old you would fall for that the 25 year old you does not. cons involving psychological trickery, sudden force, trust building, etc. THESE are the hallmarks of a child and adult sexual relationship. not your fucking cotton candy wish fulfillment fantasy life of psychological equals. you are seriously fucking delusional if you think this is the way an adult and a child can interrelate in the bedroom
if you understand the truth of that, maybe you can begin to see where you have strayed on this basic idea about psychological maturity and damage. these are real genuine serious concepts, and you dismiss them and replace them with a fantasy sequence you totally invented about adult-child sex that doesn't fucking resemble anything about reality
you are forgetting your own younger self. according to you, you splashed on to age 12 as someone as mature as a 34 year old. you're a moron, and you're delusional
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Yes. You do. Grow up and date someone your own age, quit preying on someone with clear daddy issues and exploiting their psychological trauma for your own pleasure, you selfish prick.
At least HE can make the difference between fact and fiction (the book is fiction), and keep things in perspective (the young boys part is very small in that book).
The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
The book is NOT about pedophilia, there's some alleged fiction about pedophilia in it. Not the same. Also, he didn't advocate it, more describe the pulsions of a middle aged man succombing to it... tamer than Lolita.
He recently denied having had sex with kids.
You ARE flaming, or an idiot.
The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
I have a son and a daughter... I think the current 18 is insane.
14 is more like it. But, then when I grew up I had a job starting at 8, bought my own clothes and food at 10, and went to college at 14 (so did my wife on this point). I think this extended adolescence is crazy, only a by-product of parents warehousing their children in day cares and public schools because, they think they need two incomes, the wife is too effected by the wrong message of the feminist movement (instead of embracing being a women and the power that is female they think they need to prove they can do both roles) or in the case where the women is able to make more the man is too proud to stay at home.
The benefit in going after him is simple. One should not be able to beat the system by fleeing, then hiding until the statute of limitations expires. The statute of limitations is designed to prevent the State from unfairly banhammering people after enough time has passed that practical matters mean evidence has been lost. Suppose someone shows up at your doorstop, and produces proof that a table you inherited from your grandmother was stolen 120 years ago, and wants you arrested. Is that fair? No.
However, in this case, any unfairness to the defendant caused by the passage of time, is his own damn fault. By fleeing and seeking asylum abroad, and continuing to hide quite successfully for decades, he sends several messages I severely disagree with. One, that covering up your crimes works; two, justice is not blind at all, and the rich and famous get away with anything they damn well please.
Sure, both of these things are in fact, more or less true. But they shouldn't be, and the system should not just throw up its hands and give up, merely because perfect achievement of its goals is impossible.
I'm really conflicted about that one. When I see my 16 yo old niece and her 16 you male friends, I'm wondering what would be worse for her: a relationship with one of those, or a relationship with a much older man ^^
The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
you mean, if she is instead having sex with another 13yo, she doesn't take these risks too, and probably with worse odds ?
I agree though... young is nice and fresh, but there is young and ... still a child.
The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
life expectancy used to be 45, so 13 = roughly 1/4 of that.
it's now 80, so .. ?
The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
and having the EMOTIONAL maturity and self-actualization both to properly refuse sexual advances from an adult, and to handle all the consequences that can arise from sex.
Christian family mumbo-jumbo.
Statutory rape laws exist because adults at the age of majority are in a position of authority over minors. This means that any sexual advance by an adult towards a minor is coercion, and any sex with a minor is ALWAYS non-consensual, moron.
Christian doublethink babbling.
Or perhaps kids of bigots never have sexual desire before age of majority, because they repel it very very hard, but that's hardly natural.
"Consequences that can arise from sex" there aren't, this is a christian concept, and doesn't exist for people who don't believe in a authoritarian hocus-pocus book.
I'll just refer you to my earlier comment...
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
you fucking pile of nigger shit, faggot,
... and because people on BOTH sides refuse to have a rational discussion on this.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
AAAaaarrggg, don't drink and dot, guys. You've been warned.
And it's par for the course. Sarkozy's party ran on a platform of order, xenophobia and homophobia. They're the people who want to chemically castrate sex offenders, throw refugees off the boat and deny family rights to same sex couples.
But that's only when you're talking about the plebs, when it's a person of power, of course they can like young boys and young girls all they want, up to and including rape and sex tourism. It's their creative spirit! Not the dirty smelly affairs of the poor.
I guess we should just pack up all of civilization now. No one who has never had sex can ever give informed consent to an act of sex. They've never had it. It does not matter how many times you've talked to people who have. It does not matter how many classes you've attended. Doesn't matter how many pornos you've watched. Experience is the only way to be able to acquire the information you need in order to be able to make an informed decision.
We allow "informed consent" to stand in a lot of situations where the consent isn't at all informed. This isn't any different. You can't ever be prepared to have sex with someone by never having sex. You can be not completely clueless, sure. You can make rational decisions. It just won't be informed consent in the way you define it.
I don't expect morality, equality, consistency, or justice from the law. I expect only legality.
A what? Is that the French way of saying bunghole?
and because people on BOTH sides refuse to have a rational discussion on this
O, well yeah but rational discussion is somewhat lacking in the world in general now days... But I donno maybe it has always been that way...
Only ones in Thailand. Who don't have a vote. So...
Misnomer, all of Germany was in the fray, or you could explain to me how come the kings of Bavaria and Wurttemberg had troops on the field.
when she's older, give her all the information she needs to make a decision the best she can. Possibly society might have changed more and we'll have 10 year olds regularly doing sexual things, but who knows, maybe it'll flip and we'll go through a more conservative time.
Before her first period I'd advise giving the whole birds n bee's talk, and way before that give her the talk on good touching, bad touching (to protect against molestation, naivity in kids will leave them exposed). Don't ever ever though make the topic of sex a negative one as that can affect her sex life for the future, make her know it can be positive but also make her realize that she doesn't need to do anything for someone else for them to like her, sex should always be about what we want, to make sure we are ready and to share that with someone.
As a kid she may play doctor but usually not for sexual reasons, it's just at certain ages (friends n I were 6 or so when we started) we explore bodies, notice diff things about each other, if you are worried talk to a child psychologist and work out a good set of boundaries.
Knowledge is her protection, if her and her peers are smart, stick together and look out for each other, protect each other at parties when someones drunk etc it will lower the chances quite a lot of anything bad happening. Can give her self defense classes as well, and also to try keep her self esteem high, give her positive reinforcement, praise the good in her and it should give her enough power to protect herself.
We all make mistakes in life but the thing that matters the most is that we have friends and family there for us to help guide us, pick us up when we fall, and keep our head above the water.
Good luck and you'll be a great dad, one sign of a great father is asking for help, caring so much that you are willing to research everything you can to protect your kin. Thanks for keeping society great.
If your neighbours roof is flying past your window, you know it's cyclone season.
Slashdot = Sarcasm
Polanski is a pedophile and anyone who sticks up for him is not much better.
There is no evidence that he is a pedophile. Pedophilia is the attraction to and preference for prepubescent children. Also, one can be a pedophile and not engage in sexual acts.
Slashdot - The great and glorious cluster fuck of Internet wisdom.
Are you describing France or the States?
Slashdot - The great and glorious cluster fuck of Internet wisdom.
Sarko is nowhere close to Shrub. If anything, he is left of Obama. Why the hell would you want a person worse than Sarko in 2012?
Slashdot - The great and glorious cluster fuck of Internet wisdom.
Why the focus on girls? It's also statutory rape if a grown woman has sex with a teenage boy.
Anyway, age of consent varies form 12-21 or thereabouts across the world. Are you saying that someone form Canada who had legal sex with a 14-year-old should be branded a sex criminal once he crossed the border into a U.S. state with a higher age of consent?
Pedophilia applies to desires for prepubescent children. A 13 year old is not that.
Who made Sarkozy president?
The French electoral system, which, like all other such systems starts with small cliques of career politicians deciding who of them should be rewarded this time, then the general public gets to decide which of these alternatives should actually "win" the position, while lobbyists sets the real agenda.
Ouch - you got me thinking there.
So in Italy the corporations are private, but the business decisions are made by the government? That's what fascism (aka corporatism) means. It's supposed to be a halfway point between the free market (no government control) and the communist market (government owns everything).
Fascism means an ideology in which the government is seen as highest form of authority, as opposed to personal freedoms. In it the government micromanages many aspects of normal life.
What kind of jokes you are allowed to tell, what kind of clothing you are allowed to wear, what kind of art you are allowed to look at, what kind of hobbies you should have, what kind of makeup - if any - woman can wear, etc. are some of the things that fascist governments nearly always restrict. Look at Nazi Germany, Mussolini Italy and some modern theologies for examples about that.
Corporatism is something often connected to fascism when speaking about economy but it certainly is not the same thing. You are extremely far from truth when you say "fascism (aka corporatism)".
And even further... Government doesn't own anything in a communist system. You are confusing it with socialism. Communism actually requires free markets to work!
In socialism, government owns everything and distributes the products to people. This is what soviet union, for example, tried to achieve.
In communism, workers own their tools. Think of it as every worker in a factory owning a share of the company, so they earn money if the factory makes profit and if it doesn't, they won't either. But they can buy materials, sell their products, etc. from other companies (also owned by their workers) with no government interfering. And when they earn money from the factory*, they can spend it to buy personal stuff.
(*: Assuming they - as the owners of their employer - decide that the factory pays them money, in stead of factory's mutual funds providing them food, etc. as if it had a very small socialist government)
I see no real benefit in prosecurion of 30 year old crimes, unless the offender is believed to still be doing it.
-Steve
Crime must be met with punishment. You reap what you sow. You pay for what you did. If you brutally murdered someone and you are caught 50 years later, you must be executed. Period.
What if we find a miracle pill that extends life so people can live up to 400 years? You would support an age of consent of 100?
"Who elected your representatives?"
Corporations who funded representatives with enough money to cover an area with signs, tv and radio ads.
If you don't have millions of dollars, you chances go way down.
I steal signatures. This one used to be yours.
Nice to see someone point out paedophiles like pre-pubescents. Wikipedia explains quite well the differences between pedophilia, hebephilia, and ephebophilia. It's a shame the media has corrupted the terms.
13yo were able (and often expected) to assume responsibilities of adults.
You provided evidence that they were expected to assume those responsibilities, but not that they were able. Perhaps you could provide some of that. Also, people had far fewer rights and responsibilities in those days. The humans of today have unparalleled opportunity to harm others. What might have been relevant then is irrelevant now. You're the one committing the logical fallacy, although I would be hard-pressed to name it. I can recognize bullshit when I smell it. Telling me something about ancient Judaical law is just not relevant.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
That's why in Germany the name is "Deutsch-Französischer Krieg" (German-French War). No mention of Prussia.
At least as much as Bliar.
Even in a democracy people have limited power to what a government actually does. Because of lack of information, lack of influence in decisions after they are made. Hell, we can't even keep them to the promises they made during election time. And of course we can't predict the future either, so if there is some scandal then we can't turn back our vote.
The only thing we can do is demonstrate for important issues and vote when the time comes, for the party/person which matches our ideas best. Even then important decisions will still be made regardless of the party in power because of pressure from lobbyists and such.
Blaming everybody for each decision made by (somebody in) a government is just plain ignorant. One of the most distinguishing things I find important in politicians is whether they can explain their ideals and put them at work while still handling the complexities of everyday life.
It's also very easy to use this to distinguish between "real" politicians and populists - populists always dumb down the world to a level that their (would be) followers are comfortable with, instead of attacking the complexities.
So you shouldn't think of the children?!
If this was our standard, people would not be considered adults until age 25 - that's when the brain finishes making its final connections.
And we should give that young brain as many different impulses and experiences as possible, that's what learning and training is all about.
Someone that reaches this age without exposures like sexual experimentation will be a defect adult!
--
Teun
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The entire situation is BAD from the start. Whatever stupid fucking 30 year old who needs a 13 year old has already fucked up the 13 year old's life to some extent and that is why we are talking shit about them so there is no defense and you pretty much admitted this.
I must admit, that is the bit I can't understand. Do all these celebrities really think that being famous gives you a free pass on rape? Most of the articles I've read keep defining it as stautory rape - that is sex with someone incapable of giving consent due to age (or mental age?). This was both statutory and ACTUAL rape. Sorry. He knew it was wrong. Throw the book at him.
Sara
Designer, Gamer, Macgrrl in an XP World
> Yes, it led to the brutality of the Roman Empire, where everyone was abused and therefore everyone became an
> abuser. Yes, let's go back to that.
But of course! It all started there. There was no slavery, sexual or otherwise, and no child abuse before the greek institution of young men being paired with older men as mentors and life teachers in a relationship that was sometimes, but not always, sexual.
It makes so much more sense now.
> Yes, nobody has ever become an emotional cripple for life or a dangerous criminal because of a sexual
> experience in their past... No families have ever been destroyed because of "just sex". Nope. Never.
You can't say whats going to effect a person. Plenty of people have become dangerous criminals or emotional cripples without such experiences. Families are never destroyed by sex...its more like cheating and deception etc that destroys families, and those are not just sex.
Nice try though.
-Steve
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"