Slashdot Mirror
Teen Suicide Tormentor Outed By Anonymous
MightyMartian writes "From the CBC: 'The tragic story of B.C. teen suicide victim Amanda Todd has taken another bizarre twist as the internet hacking and activist group Anonymous has named a man the group says was the girl's primary tormentor. Todd, 15, of Port Coquitlam, British Columbia, died last Wednesday, a month after posting a haunting video on YouTube that cited the sexualized attack that set her down a path of anxiety, depression and drug and alcohol abuse.' This raises a whole nest of issues surrounding the presumption of innocence and vigilantism. Should the police and the courts be given the appropriate amount of time to determine if there is sufficient evidence, or if a crime has in fact been committed, or is Anonymous right in short-circuiting what might in fact be a lengthy process with no guarantee that anyone will face charges?"
If you're going to try to punish someone for a crime (and make no mistake, naming the man is meant to be a punishment), you'd better make damn sure you get the right person.
For all the problems of the legal system, it is decent at that -- far from perfect, but probably better than some random anonymice.
You forgot to blame Hitler, comic books, rock and roll, D&D, and video games.
Hope he's the right guy. If not, even if he is a piece of shit otherwise (and all signs point to "Yes!"), he's about to have to endure a shit storm of epic proportion fall upon him. And that would not be fair...
If he is the right guy...I will enjoy watching him self-destruct.
Scott
"Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid."
Anonymous could have blood on their hands if the outrage becomes a lynch mob. I have no sympathy for the man, but the internet is a kangaroo court.
Excuse me? Since when has religion had much to do with morality? It's about peer influence. The change here is the perceived anonymity of the internet. The belief the is not god has been around long before then belief in any god. I don't know what your quip about Atheism is based on.
Atheism leads to this.
I'm pretty sure you don't need to believe in God to consider rape and murder unethical, immoral, and just wrong. In fact, plenty of people have pointed out (repeatedly) the fallacy of assuming that one needs God and/or religion to be good, so there is no reason to say more on that topic here. Go forth and Google.
The culture of consent and contraception, leads to this.
I'm not sure what the "culture of contraception" is, but I am pretty sure it does not lead to this kind of behavior, either. In fact, I strongly suspect this behavior - in general, minus the Internet - predates the widespread availability of contraception.
"No sane man will dance." -- Marcus Tullius Cicero
Child porn (aka the picture of Amanda's breasts) is a felony. Her death was caused by that felony. Does that make it felony murder? (Yes, I know - she was Canadian and the laws aren't the same in Canada...)
Atheism leads to this.
What does Atheism have to do with any of this? Because I don't believe there's an invisible man in the sky means I don't have any morals?
If Anonymous has material evidence that points to the guilt of a particular individual, they should turn that evidence over to the responsible law enforcement agency, not go public and taint both the investigation and public opinion. The detectives may have had the opportunity to seize evidence before the person knew he was under suspicion, or set up a sting operation. They'd also have the chance to clear the individual if he's innocent without the mess of threats of violence I presume this guy is now going to get.
Presuming this person is eventually charged and tried, Anonymous releasing this information can complicate the job of the prosecutor, having the opposite effect intended.
On the other hand, if this person is innocent, Anonymous just released a shitstorm on this poor guy that's going to be nearly impossible to get rid of until the police charge someone else.
I don't see any situations where Anonymous' action result in a more positive outcome than would have come about through other choices.
-Ryan
AUWYHSTOT (Acronyms are Useless When You Have to Spell Them Out Too)
Should the police and the courts be given the appropriate amount of time to determine if there is sufficient evidence, or if a crime has in fact been committed
In theory yes, but the problem with bullying is that the legal system doesn't protect it sufficiently .. there is this double standard. The exact same behaviors that would be considered criminal just a few years later is dismissed as 'normal' (and you're told to 'ignore it') at school level. This is primarily when vigilantism becomes attractive - when the formal justice system fails to protect victims.
What should happen is that more forms of bullying should be criminalized, and the penalties should be harsher - e.g. physical assault should be treated more often as an adult crime and teens should be tried as adults for committing physical assault. And as with committing crime as an adult, there should be harsher consequences that follow you through life. Currently when leaving school, there are no negative consequences for bullies at all - not even a modicum of shame in the workplace (this is why I support more 'name and shame' efforts for even past bullies).
Unfortunately, much like battered wife syndrome, without formal recourse, desperate victims are sometimes forced and driven to either tragically commit suicide, or occasionally, take out their own tormentors in the worst cases (e.g. some school shootings). At least in the latter, if there is a silver lining, it's that there is some manner of repercussion for the perpetrators - that is what is sorely needed.
Is this serious? Is someone on /. really wondering if it is better to let the police and the judiciary sytem decide if someone committed a crime and who it was, or just let anonymous (!) people do justice on their own?
Are people really nostalgic of the good old days of lynching etc.?
What Anonymous is doing is called revenge. Revenge is not justice.
Views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the author.
A parallel story, not related to the case in question, but another instance of somebody being outed for their (in)actions:
http://gawker.com/5950981/unmasking-reddits-violentacrez-the-biggest-troll-on-the-web
The person in that story might be a bit more on the verge of the defensible than those who would directly target a specific person - minor or otherwise - such as the one covered here.
Voting in a Republican and A Christian leads to this. If we had a woman Neo Pagan in the white house it would have never happened.
Dont believe me? during the downward spiral of the USA EVERY SINGLE president has been a Christian! The evidence is there! It's a conspiracy!
Hey it makes as much sense as the rest of the nutjobs out there.....
Even if this is the right guy and the accuser was of sound mind, I'd prefer the law would handle this rather than Anonymous. Vigilante justice is fun and all, but how far from throwing acid on people or stonings is this?
And should we trust Anonymous on this one? What if they are just covering for one of their own?
I'd take the partially opposing perspective that Christianity and moralism are responsible for making it so that a) it's somehow "evil" to see someone's breasts, b) if a girl shows her breasts, she is a slut and a whore and should be ashamed of herself and do whatever it takes to have no one find out about it, c) if someone has a naked picture of you, they have some sort of power over you, because boobies are evil and we all should be ashamed of our beautiful bodies.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
... everyone has one, and Anonymous is no exception. Absent a gag order, due process has historically done little to thwart the expression of opinions or free speech, regardless of basis in fact/truth (or lack thereof). AFAIC, provided that they don't pose an obstruction of justice or investigation, Anonymous can discuss whoever they want whenever they want regarding public concerns - that alone does not make them vigilantes. Vigilantes are the ones who haphazardly take action. Speech is not action... hence the expression: actions speak louder than words...
I suppose the greatest risk here is the potential for ruinous libel of their target if they end up being wrong. Would Anonymous apologize or write a check?
Yes, cause you know, no priest was ever found to do the same thing. Get real, neither atheism nor religion is at the core of a sick psyche. Get your head out of your ass.
The primary issue with due process is that it is set up in order to preserve the life of an innocent person, at the cost of letting 9 guilty people go free. When you find yourself at the end of a legal cannon, you will be very happy for every line written that the system must jump through in order to prosecute you, legally.
Unfortunately, the worst of us know how to use this system to benefit themselves, and so as the web is drawn tighter, they simply make themselves more slippery until eventually the spiders are trapped and only the flies know the way out of the web. The genie is out of the bottle for these, crooks, though so a hard reset of the tort system won't fix anything. We're stuck with what we have and it is ever-worsening.
In comes vigilantism. They don't worry about things like "alleged" or "possible" -- they deal in terms of black and white -- guilty or ignored. You don't want to be at the end of a vigilante cannon -- as they lack all accountability, you lack the security of knowing that you will escape unscathed if you prove yourself to be innocent.
As with any red-tape law, before you criticize it, you must ask yourself "If a very bad political power wanted to come after me, can this law potentially be used to protect me?" The answer is almost always a sorry "yes"
I caught a few of the threads where the apparent perp was outed, and I was very encouraged at the volume of comments that basically said 'that's enough data, now let's turn it over to the authorities.' Crowdsourcing of evidence-gathering is terribly powerful, and it's nice to see that even in a large pool of people (in a vigilante mood) the majority still have a sense that there's a line between prosecutor and jury. Sure, there are issues with naming potentially innocent people, but when the crowd refrains from attack and turns to a judicial system, it's the best we can do.
I think not...(*poof*)
This is rape and murder. Maybe not by society's definition. Maybe not by the liberalized culture that thinks tricking a 14 year old into baring her breasts on the internet is just good clean fun. Or that consent is always equivalent to permission. So as much as I consider what anonymous has done to be vigilantism; one cannot say that this man, or the teenage boy, or any of the rest of this poor girl's tormentors are innocent.
It's all tied together. Society's rejection of morality and ethics leads to this. Atheism leads to this. The culture of consent and contraception, leads to this. The only thing left to do is learn from it instead of repeating the same mistakes as the hippie generation.
Emphasis mine... you were doing so well up until this point. Straw man fallacy. Atheism does not lead to this. Amorality leads to this. It is 100% possible to be an atheist with morals. In fact, I can list thousands of amoral things organized religion has done to the world. (Inquisition, Jihad, etc.) Your argument is bullshit.
Consent and contraception leads to healthy, happy relationships without unwanted children to screw things up. Those allow you to adequately plan for your child's future, save up for their lives, and be prepared for when they actually arrive. With consent and contraception, you have the opportunity to provide a better, properly planned life instead of one that leads to divorce, single-parent homes and priests molesting children. (See? I can straw-man too!)
Remember: Treat your religion like your penis. Don't whip it out every chance you get, and please don't jam it down my throat. Because that would be gay. And we all know what you extremist religious types feel about gayness.
The anonymous dox might have the WRONG address
http://www.cknw.com/news/vancouver/story.aspx?ID=1791555
there's the danger
Karma: Excellent. 15 moderator points expire sometime.
This is rape and murder [blogspot.com]. Maybe not by society's definition.
So then it's not rape and murder.* What other definition actually counts for anything?
Maybe not by the liberalized culture that thinks tricking a 14 year old into baring her breasts on the internet is just good clean fun.
Also not by any level-headed person including those who do think that tricking a 14 year old into exposing herself is a hideous thing to do.
From the page you linked to:
Thus, homosexuality is rape. Thus, one night heterosexual stands are rape. Thus, premarital sex, even with "consent", is rape.
Confirmed: you are an idiot. Doubly so if you actually wrote that and don't just agree with it.
Society's rejection of morality and ethics leads to this. Atheism leads to this. The culture of consent and contraception, leads to this.
No, no, and no. You know what leads to this? Humans. We are all (including the Pope, no matter what the Catholics are told to believe) fallible. We do some shitty things sometimes, and just as many of those things have been in the name of a god as not. Grow out of talking to your imaginary friend and take some collective responsibility along with the rest of us soul-less animals.
Also, find a friend to get laid with. It's awesome!
*Disclaimer: I do think that what happened to this poor girl is terrible and those responsible should face the full force of the law, such as it is. I just decided to focus more on this poster for being a cock-womble.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
And I done screwed up. I don't mean amoral. I meant immoral. Sorry, it's been a long week, and it's only Tuesday.
You wouldn't believe how many women consider consensual one nighter as rape when it involve alcohol (even when both are affected). They somewhat think that remorse is equivalent to being forced to,
Okay. I read your blog post at the link. Your definition of rape omits the concept of consent, and randomly includes premarital sex (which would fit the definition in the first line) and homosexuality. Good luck with your mimeographed newsletter; I shall file you under "troll" and carry on. I sine Deus.
"No sane man will dance." -- Marcus Tullius Cicero
They simply provided information.
"Anonymous right in short-circuiting what might in fact be a lengthy process with no guarantee that anyone will face charges?"
You would only be right to even ask that question if they set out to punished this person, they have simply acted as a journalist type group and released information about the case.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
The culture of consent led to this?!?!?!
Are you saying that what we need is NON-consent?
By the way, asshole - it was a culture that UNDERVALUES female's consent that led to this.
She did not consent, yet all over the web you'll see on every news site thousands of comments blaming HER for creating the problem.
But she didn't. She did NOT CONSENT. But when females don't consent, there are always plenty of males who don't give a fuck and proceed to harass and abuse and insult and sexualize and objectify anyway.
This space available.
So if Anonymous makes a mistake and outs the wrong person and that person becomes harassed by the public backlash to the point of committing suicide... Will Anonymous out their outer?
According to the following website, the suspected person appeared in court yesterday:
http://www.dailydot.com/news/amanda-todd-kody-maxson/
Another related story about people being exposed appeared on Slashdot a few days ago. Fortunately that one had a happy ending (no pun intended): the names were published. The First Amendment survives another brush with the false dignity of the powerful.
Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
And particularly please don't traumatize kids with it.
Its a lot easier to be moral when you don't have to follow the teachings of stone age goat diddling, child molesting, genocidal maniacs aka Christians, Muslims and Jews. Read the bible sometime, see the sick and twisted shit that they worship.
I'm pretty sure you don't need to believe in God to consider rape and murder unethical, immoral, and just wrong.
Pretty much. If fear of God is all that keep you you from doing bad things then you are not a good person.
Superstition which relies on guilt to control people NEEDS them to do many things ("sins") for it to leverage.
Superstitionists refuse to PROVE their Sky Fairie exists, so those accepting their definitions of "sin" are just taking their word for it.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
As is usually the case, religion is simply the vehicle by which cultural values are expressed. About three quarters of sexually liberal Sweden would be Christian. In this case the moratorium on female nipples comes from a desire to control rather than any particular piety. What exactly is being controlled I leave as an exercise for the reader to determine.
(Judges 21:10-24 NLT)
So they sent twelve thousand warriors to Jabesh-gilead with orders to kill everyone there, including women and children. "This is what you are to do," they said. "Completely destroy all the males and every woman who is not a virgin." Among the residents of Jabesh-gilead they found four hundred young virgins who had never slept with a man, and they brought them to the camp at Shiloh in the land of Canaan.
(Numbers 31:7-18 NLT)
They attacked Midian just as the LORD had commanded Moses, and they killed all the men. All five of the Midianite kings â" Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur, and Reba â" died in the battle. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. Then the Israelite army captured the Midianite women and children and seized their cattle and flocks and all their wealth as plunder. They burned all the towns and villages where the Midianites had lived. After they had gathered the plunder and captives, both people and animals, they brought them all to Moses and Eleazar the priest, and to the whole community of Israel, which was camped on the plains of Moab beside the Jordan River, across from Jericho.
Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the people went to meet them outside the camp. But Moses was furious with all the military commanders who had returned from the battle. "Why have you let all the women live?" he demanded. "These are the very ones who followed Balaam's advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at Mount Peor. They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD's people. Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves.
(Deuteronomy 20:10-14)
As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.
---
Oh yea.... religion is really against rape except for young women who are untouched by man.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
This rape is commanded and approved by the deity and major priests.
Don't get me started on what they do to "suckling babes" who don't follow the religion. It's not pretty. The character Yahweh is one evil, psychotic, amoral, sadistic, narcissitic bastard and/or he considers humans to be about as important as we consider ants. I have no problem kicking over an ant hill.
Then again, I don't talk to them and control their affairs on a personal basis either.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
I'd really want to take a weighted average, where how christian you are comes into play. There are people who say they are a religion, and there are people who take that religion very seriously. I'd think the Christians here are more, uhm... "Christiany"... than over there. Maybe evangelical is the word I'm looking for, but maybe not. Halp.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
Things like this happen literally ALL the time.
I do not think that means what you think it means.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Raises a good point though... Facebook was hosting/linking to child porn for an extended period, and letting people comment on it. Facebook is located in the US.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that it's been a while since you've been a teenage girl. At that age peer/parental/community pressure can seem like the most crushing, overwhelming burden to ever exist in the history of the planet. This is what makes what this guy (allegedly) did so repellent-- taking advantage of those who are more emotionally vulnerable, impulsive, and irrational than they ever will be in their lives.
Sure, "you own your own actions", etc, but for some of these kids the internet is their entire community or peer group, it is much more difficult to shrug off.
It's amazing what a few years out of high school will do to restore one's perspective-- don't kill yourselves, kids, it really does get better!
That's not Christianity; that's Puritanism, which is (or was) a distinct sect within Christianity, heavily influenced by asceticism, which is a non-religious philosophy. Americans probably have a higher correlation between Christianity and Puritansim, as many of their initial settlers were Puritans getting the hell out of England, but it's still a false equivalency. It's like saying that all atheists believe life came about due to extra-terrestrial contact, just because Erich von Däniken is an atheist.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
Are they more Christian or simply more evangelical about exporting their cultural values wherever possible though, spreading their sphere of control? While its true that religion influences culture, to a great extent the opposite is true as well. Even within Catholicism, ostensibly a single bloc, the rites for saying mass and attitudes of the clergy can vary wildly from country to country.
b) if a girl shows her breasts, she is a slut and a whore and should be ashamed of herself and do whatever it takes to have no one find out about it,
More generally, I'm also perplexed by the social double-standard where men who have (had) multiple sex-partners (or are sexually aggressive, for lack of a better word) are "studs", but women are "sluts". Seems like a bunch of misogynistic bullshit from insecure men to make women feel second-rate. (I'm a guy, by the way.)
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
I should just make it more general and say religionists.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
More generally, I'm also perplexed by the social double-standard where men who have (had) multiple sex-partners (or are sexually aggressive, for lack of a better word) are "studs", but women are "sluts".
Women call women who sleep around sluts. Men just call them.
"His name was James Damore."
As much as the Vancouver area, and British Columbia in general are beautiful places, with many wonderful people - justice here isn't entirely working. Whether it's our somewhat US leaning government on the other side of the continent messing with the codes, or that BC economically crashed at the end of the 80s thanks to US interference ... things basically aren't perfect. ... and thanks to Anonymous, there's now sufficient evidence for the authorities to investigate.
... and people continue to bully, harass and even sexually assault the same kinds of ways.
If you keep cutting police and keep increasing their load, coincident with cutting education and increasing their load too - no one has any time left anymore unless there's overwhelming evidence.
I've known people who've been harassed the same ways, and justice was not found.
and we all let it happen, or even do it ourselves.
I hope they've got the guy who started it.
They're not going to touch the hundreds of people at her schools that bullied because of it - probably.
maybe they'll make it easier to find and rescue victims before it's too late. And some justice beats none.
He never forgot porn. But you can't blame your own god, can you? Oh wait...
...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
This idea has complex social and biological origins and is not totally absurd. Men and Women are quite different in some things, even though they are quite alike in many others.
As Supreme Court Justice Byron White said. You don't need the presumption of guilt, To be just punishment only need to dished out "when he concludes that his interests require ... and the record strongly indicates guilt."
e.g.The Edublogs site went dark for about an hour after its hosting company, ServerBeach, pulled the plug. The hosting firm was responding to a copyright claim from publisher Pearson, which said one blog had been illegally sharing information it owned.
seems like terrorism, rape, and 1st degree murder charges are in order. and if they don't come down quickly, heck, then maybe we don't need the authorities involved at all... .
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
But does she really have anyone to blame but herself? Seriously, some random guy on the Internet asks her to show her tits and she does it?
I'd be more inclined to blame the society that would make her (or teach her to be) afraid and ashamed of her behavior. I know she was a minor, but it was her body and, in a more ideal world, she should have felt more comfortable, saying to anyone and everyone, "ya, I show him my breasts, now fuck off."
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
In no way is tricking a child into such a thing acceptable by any definition. Children must be protected from all of society and sometimes from their own parents. Society never rejected morality. The Internet is not society. Nor is society found in the Internet. It is its own culture. In spectacular opposition to meatspace, here the extreme tend to gain the most attention. In the faceless rabble, there be dragons.
Despite the past missteps by anonymous, there is good work done and more to do. There's no place in either society for those who hurt children. Among us all on the Internet, hides the vilest vipers whose second worst aspect is their anonymity. If the faceless rabble spits them into the pit where they belong, is it different than any other self-correcting society?
They're using their grammar skills there.
good point.
shit like this has always happened, it's just that now it doesn't stay behind closed doors and isn't covered up with "he needed killing"-vigilante justice. also, the internet has the power to turn anything that happens in the entire world into lurid sensationalism.
"They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
I wonder how people would feel if they realized that, agnostic to the possibility of a deity existing, their "god" likely isn't much more than a warped internalization of their parents ... kind of the adult version of an imaginary friend.
Thus making religion a manifestation of something along the lines of the sense of security of the family, the anxieties of growing up, and the fear of encountering dangers outside of the family, etc...
Basically, people like the sense of familiarity and try to maintain some semblance of it into adulthood so they feel more secure and sure of themselves. It gets spooky when you realize that that sense of familiarity is frequently not the positive kind.
This is usually where I get accused of being atheistic...
Any sufficiently advanced influence is indistinguishable from control.
isn't morality the actual problem... if she was "amoral" and didn't care that society would shun her because of their puritanical belief system, wouldn't have bothered her at all.
Asceticism (the belief that pleasure, of which sex and sexuality is a subset, is evil/wrong/unhelpful) is not exclusively a religious philosophy. There are plenty of ascetic atheists.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
These suicide / harassment cases keep happening. I think the black letter law is adequate to prosecute for manslaughter in these cases: i.e. criminal but not felonious actions that result in a death but where death was not a likely outcome. But since prosecutors seem iffy to just apply manslaughter charges, just have black letter law to make it explicitly apply.
Your sarcastic tone is not exactly helpful. If someone wants to be sneaky they'll find a way to do it. Back in the day they'd pretend to go to sleep then sneak out the bedroom window. Nowadays they can use their phone, or a friend's phone, or tablet, or whatever. If they don't have a dataplan there's free wifi all over.
Basically you cannot hope to totally control a kid once they get to this age...all you can do is be there, be attentive, and hope that you've done a good enough job parenting to cover the times when they're on their own.
This idea has complex social and biological origins and is not totally absurd. Men and Women are quite different in some things, even though they are quite alike in many others.
Ya, I get that, but the concept is obsolete, especially if you accept that women have (or should have) control over their own bodies and that men should respect women as equals. Both sexes have responsibility for their actions and the consequences of those actions.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Has always worked so well in the past. Let's just look at the lower rates of everything we are exceptionally tough on: [insert infinity "loading" circle here]
My 2yo and 3yo sons regularly bite/scratch/beat on each other. In adults this would be assault and battery (possibly even aggravated assault). Are you proposing that they should go to jail?
False. Counter Examples: Rush Limbaugh, Ultra Orthodox Men, Russian Official, and so on.
A key that opens many locks is a master key. A lock that can be opened by many keys is a shitty lock.
Not saying I agree with it, but the analogy fits fairly well.
/. Dating Tip #67: Don't use that analogy with a date / girlfriend - ever.
[ And I would avoid using the phrase "master key" in most dating situations. ]
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Do we think any of this actually had to do with religion, or it's lack? It had to do with the dominance seeking instincts of teens. Kids are cruel and can be this way because they don't fully understand what they are doing. They assume that because they never will expose their boobs, or they can't, that something like this can never affect them. That's the only reason why this happens.
Kids are jerks, and they have never needed religion to be so. Probably some of the tormentors were atheists, some were religionists and probably more of them just don't even care one way or another. The only reason this happens is because kids are kids and parents don't take responsibility for making sure that their children aren't little assholes.
Belief in God (or at least stating you believe e.g. Priests) doesn't seem to stop people doing bad things either. How does that even work in a religion where you can repent/confess and all your sins are forgiven.
Here is one way to logic not doing bad things without God, maybe not perfect. If you do bad things then you will think of yourself as a bad person, then will feel bad about yourself, that will make you unhappy, so don't do it. If you do good things then you will feel good about yourself and you will be happier. Kind self enforced karma. It seems to be true, there are studies that show doing nice things for others makes people happier than buying things for themselves. Ref http://www.livescience.com/2376-key-happiness-give-money.html. Another theory (no real proof) if you are nice you tend to think other people are nice (they may or may not be) but then you assume they aren't trying to be mean to you so you are happier.
In the end you can convince yourself of anything, if you try hard enough, God or no God it probably depends more on the person you are than the religious beliefs you hold.
No... because without his invisible man in the sky, he would have no morals.
That kind of person scares me. What happens if they ever lose their faith? They'll turn into raping, murdering lunatics since God was the only thing keeping them decent.
"Anything done out of fear has no moral value"
You're right, I probably wouldn't believe whatever you tell me about that.
you can't seriously be blaming a middle-school kid for being manipulated and subsequently tormented by a 32-year-old psychopath.
There are girls without boobs too, but I'm still gonna say that girls usually have them and that's where they tend to be (despite some guys having boobs). Catch my drift?
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
I do advocate total freedom to everyone regarding their bodies and I will be the first one defending that idea, but the labels you were talking about are not laws or any kind of denial of rights. Women do have the right in most modern cultures of having as many partners they want, as they should.
But what we are talking about here is perception, how humans see individuals of both sexes that engage in "promiscuity", for lack of a better word. That has not only social roots as biological roots. Men do not and will probably never see a promiscuous woman as a desired partner, because instinctively we want them to carry our genes and not somebody else's. Women on the other hand will always carry their own genes, and so they instinctively look for other things in their partners, usually strength and dominance, which are usually traits of men disputed by many women, thus making male promiscuity actually instinctively attractive.
Yes. Your drift is gross generalizations with poor analogies. Please continue.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
Your drift is you want to split hairs with all generalities because they are only mostly true. Banal pedanticism.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
invisible man in the sky
Which religion believes that?
Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
as in the biblical concept of a plague of demons
It is a phenomenon beyond anyone's control, and will be with us for sometime. As random as lightning strikes and just as easy to predict.
It exists to focus destruction on various targets, guided by an atavistic desire for justice and revenge without form or substance, as determined by complete whim. It's basically mob hysteria on a permanent rampage, galumphing across the Internet and reaching out to the real world in unpredictable ways. It targets what it considers evildoers, but it does it in the same way a bull targets a matador in a china shop. It is what it is, a force without reason and guided by whim and emotion.
As far as I can tell in terms of best approach to dealing with it, just stay the hell away from it and out of its path as best you can, and maybe as Internet and society continue to evolve together it will subside. Or get worse. Who knows.
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
My statements apply to all ages. You do realize in nudist colonies, the children are naked too, right?
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
You wouldn't believe how many women consider consensual one nighter as rape...
And you wouldn't believe how many governments would use that as an excuse to extradite a whistle-blower.
Anonymous acted as a vigilante.
I'm not certain this is true. While Anon did go beyond the (accepted) practice of an informant providing information to the authorities, (s)he did not carry out any punishment or retribution.
The man himself has now been threatened online by others vowing to carry out vigilante justice, a development that worries Vancouver defence lawyer Eric Gottardi.
Yeah, right. A defense lawyer. What would you expect from the, "My client is innocent" crowd. Perhaps the suspect needs to turn himself over to the police, tell them his story and let them either charge him or possibly clear his name (mistakes do happen). No acts of vigilantism have been carried out. Yet. But now there's political pressure for the police to do something about it, one way or the other.
Have gnu, will travel.
Hahaha, judging by the modding on this and the grandparent - calling out sexism on slashdot = inviting downvotes.
They're not calling the women sluts because they had sex. They're calling the women sluts because they disagree with them, want to silence them, and character assassination often works.
Aspersions about their sex habits are the tool, the motive is power.
The only caveat I would add is to generally apply these rules to new or irregular partners. If your long-time girlfriend is drunk and interested in sex, I don't see a problem with it. It's still a good idea to talk to her about these things when she's sober, prior to the situation.
Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
https://archiveofthebitingbeaver.wordpress.com/2008/05/31/the-rapist-checklist-repost/
This is the viewpoint held pretty much 100% by radical feminists
I went to a fairly liberal college and regularly got to hear how sex with drunk girls was the same as raping them.
Then I thought about all the regrettable women that I'd slept with because I was drunk and wouldn't normally touch them with a 10 foot pole.. and how I was there, also the bad guy for not returning their calls.
This is the dumbest answer to a question with a simple answer.
It's men have to be chosen to have sex, women have to accept an offer. A man who sleeps with many women is presumably desirable, a woman who sleeps with many men is presumed to have low standards. Also many "slutty" girls seem to be full of mental problems, this is personal experience, I do realize it's not always the case but it's truer than I'd like.
The whole "Moral" conversation is a primate briar patch. Just whose definition of "Right" and "Wrong" are we going to use? Your Parents? Jesus? The Taliban? Jesus had no problem with slavery, it was a normal thing in the world of his time. Now its considered immoral, we do things today without a moments hesitation that would have earned someone an instant stoning in biblical times.
Mostly what people do with morality is judge themselves as superior and others inferior. Leading to the whole I'm going to shove my gawd/beliefs/political view down your throat for your own good. So rather than trying to hang people in the Fun-House mirror that morality is, seeing as there is no "Morality" outside of human interpretation. It would behoove us to come up with something a little more utilitarian, and a wee bit less subjective.
Personally, I vote for workability. This is something we can easily work on together as a society, and come up with objective measures and pragmatic goals inside of. We create a continuum from spitting on the sidewalk at one end to child rape (or pick you pet atrocity to place here) at the other. We look at workable solutions to the misanthrope who commits that act. For the unruly child we explain why we don't spit, and we help him curb his habit. For the child rapist, molester, abuser, we have a city, on an island. They will work hard there the rest of their lives. Because they have restitution to pay for as well as paying for the infrastructure that now houses them. Whatever is left over, is theirs and they can participate in leading otherwise useful and productive lives. What they give up, is the right to ever see another human being younger than they are and the gender of their sexual preference (so in a very real way, sex is no longer a part of their lives.) These people will be moved through their system like cattle, and be given many ways to lead useful lives. If they instead choose violence or hostility, at some point they'll earn the right to be returned to the carbon cycle. No prison. no hatred. No stigma. No judgement. Just action - reaction. You ever notice, nobody has a problem with gravity. We all have gravity wired by the time we're 2 years old. Workability should aspire to be like that. Simple, quick, compassionate, and resolute. You just remove the source of difficulty and treat people like human beings until they prove otherwise.
A good person is one who does good. A bad person is one who does bad.
so if you were an actor and had to shoot someone in a scene, and i replaced your prop gun with a real loaded weapon so you shot them for real you would be a bad person?
if someone's girlfriend tells them that they really like sex rough but in fact hate it and he has rough sex with her which she pretends to like yet really hates it. he is a bad person?
if someone holds a gun to my head and threatens to kill me unless i give them all my money, then when i hand them over my money that makes me a good person?
a good person is someone who does good - solely for the sake of being good.
i spent five minutes thinking and all i got was this crappy sig
that is the next step. manipulation. silver tongued demagogues have been manipulating mob psychology for millennia to all sorts of nefarious goals
Anonymous will move from capricious force trying to work for justice without a head, to outright manipulated used tool
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
being raped is no longer shameful but something for women to take pride in
i'm supposed to behave and be diplomatic in my responses, but for anyone to form the thought you just wrote requires a special combination of being a fucking moron and a sick douchebag all in one neat steaming pile
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I didn't suggest theists are amoral, I suggested there was no correlation.
The reason they think that is because there are scumbags out there preying on drunk women, or slipping drugs in women's drinks. By the way, its not the number of women who think that, its the number of judges and prosecuting attorneys that think that and I hate to say Bubba, you're on the losing end of that conversation. A drunk woman can't legally consent to sex, therefore you're begging to end up in jail if you take one home. If you're unable to avoid getting stupid drunk, then you should probably avoid drinking in public because you could... accidentally rape someone, wake up with a transvestite, get killed crossing a highway, go to jail for DUI, kill someone with your car, get a disease, hopefully you're getting the point here. Dude, holster your thang, and do not fire it without proper warning and protection. To do less is at least irresponsible, and potentially criminal.
Welcome to the 21rst century now step on please.
From TFA:
A national child anti-exploitation group, cybertip.ca, says it received a tip almost a year ago about Todd.
A concerned citizen contacted the organization last November to report that images of Todd were being circulated online, said spokeswoman Signy Arnason.
"We did receive one report, and that was passed along to law enforcement as well as child welfare," Arnason said Monday. "It was not a report from her, but it was a report from a concerned citizen."
So ... the girl was tormented by an adult who posted her topless images on seedy sites and that so-called "national child anti-exploitation group" got a tip and what they did?
The spoke-woman claimed that they have passed that tip to the "law enforcement" as well as "child welfare".
That was when that little girl was still being tormented by that sick adult, and what happened?
Nothing !
Neither the police nor the child welfare nor that "national child anti-exploitation group" did anything to protect the girl.
She was so tormented, so helpless that she chose to end her life.
Whose fault was it?
The society !
All of us have turned into zombies.
When someone got tormented, we just did what we do - passing the buck.
Like what that "national child anti-exploitation group" did.
All they did was passing the buck to the police and then ... nothing.
What's the use of having a "national child anti-exploitation group" when they don't do nothing??
I'm not in any shape or form related to the anonymous but I do applaud what they have done in this case.
They have done what the police, the child welfare system and the national child anti-exploitation group have all failed to do - to flush that sick motherfucker out in the open.
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
If we want to accept the assumptions here, I think it is much more likely there was no thought of God as opposed to thinking there was no god
Is it unfair to assume before the concept of a God was ever thought of - the creator(s) of everything - there were other thoughts about where things came from?
I fail to see how your fish rant is relevant
You just make up your own little definition of rape and call everything you don't like "rape."
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
Morality has been tied to religion in the West, and defined it, for the overwhelming majority of people for thousands of years. Yes, you can have a moral system apart from religion, and there have been many fine, upstanding individuals who were atheists. But in the last 100 years, experience with officially atheist governments have not produced happy outcomes, by and large. Indeed, they have been terribly bloody.
As to the concept of God, you help make my point: you cannot disbelieve in what you have not as yet conceived, the question would not even occur to you. How could it?
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
You wouldn't believe the lengths some men go to to fuck women who are crazy enough to call "rape" after a drunken hook-up...
Sorry, but check out St. Paul and some of the other pre-protestant christian saints. The psychosis isn't original to the Puritans. They weren't even close to being the worst.
OTOH, you can even find similar beliefs among Buddhists and (I think) even Taoists. I've never encountered it among followers of Shinto, but I haven't known many. So blaming it on any particular religion isn't fair. It's better to say that it's a mental problem endemic among humans, and that certain social forms, among them certain religions, tend to foster it.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
So, do you agree that drunken sex should be illegal?
testing out my trending skills
FWIW, I tend to see those who are sexually promiscuous as probably carriers of sexually transmitted diseases. Which are becoming increasingly hard to treat, as they become resistant to more and more antibiotics. I wonder why no vaccines have been developed.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
The problem isn't her showing her tits on the 'net. Obviously, she has no problem with some apparent stranger seeing her bare breasts.
The problem lies with some asshole attempting to blackmail her into giving a peep show on the 'net by threatening to send the picture of her bare breasts to her family and friends. And then does so. That's the problem. If her dirty laundry hadn't been aired out to those closest to her, this would have been a non-issue. People's lives, careers, and families have been ruined over less.
I'd argue that a great deal of fifteen year old girls don't have the emotional or mental capacities to cope with such a life altering event. Hence the suicide, instead of issuing a public apology and stepping down from political office, resigning their position, or taking earlier retirement.
Fuck you, you fucking fuck.
I had a better response, but this is all you deserve.
My problem is, he's a horrible person that needs to be shut down, but he's not why she suicided. At least, not the sole reason. Amanda Todd was 12 or 13 when Maxson snapped the photo, a year older when he shared the photos, so Maxson's crime is, at the very least, distributing child porn. They can prove that. Maybe they'll go after him for other things (she claimed she was blackmailed, pictures were distributed, QED).
But it doesn't escape me that her entire community FAILED her most. Primarily, the actual bullying kids who preyed on her are even more directly responsible for her suicide; the people who put up Facebook pages with her boobs — direct harassment, needs to be punished. I'd LOVE to see those brats (all of them, even the ones who merely witnessed it and didn't say anything) get sent to juvey and put to work cleaning toilets or building homes for the poor; they're a wretched sort who don't get an out, but whose "rehabilitation" could actually benefit themselves and deter other kids from piling on with bullying. Such a thing could make Amanda Todd's life seem worthwhile without being too cruel (the bullies are, after all, teens).
Her parents might have slipped a bit a few nights when she was 12, but they also turned around and put her in counseling, let her change schools numerous times, let her change cities, etc, so I'm finding it REALLY hard to blame her family at all. That one-second "boob flash" could happen to any one of our childen (well, except those of us who ban webcams, like I do, but that's pretty extreme heh). What more could her family have done to rectify her situation? (I really have no idea. Change identities and nationalities and move en masse, because of one boob shot when their daughter was 12?!)
Finally, all these "mourners" now, who went to school with her, taught her, etc, why didn't they sit with her at lunch? I mean, even a TINY BIT of support from her community at any time in these two years (which feels like forever when you're 12) might have given her the strength she needed to stand against Maxson; to prosecute him; to prosecute the bullies that ganged up and assaulted her. It's really sad, but for all the bad Maxson did, and for all the cruelty of the actual bullies, it was Vancouver as a whole who failed her.
That's pretty much what I said. The general term is asceticism, and it is present in some religions, some sects of some religions, and some areligious philosophies. There's nothing particularly wrong with asceticism either, as a personal philosophy. I certainly wouldn't classify it as a mental problem. It's just when people try to enforce it at a political level that it becomes problematic (like pretty much any philosophy so enforced).
And, yeah, the whole monastic tradition is pretty much built around asceticism. But Puritanism is the most direct link to the asceticism of Christians in the United States, which is why I brought it up.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
The quantity of gametes produced by and the possible reproductive frequency of each gender are grossly disproportional. As a male I am (theoretically) fertile at all times from puberty until I die and am not biologically constrained to fathering children once every nine months. Social stigmatization, morals, ethics and child support aside, I am want to spread my seed as much as possible. Women, however, are relatively constrained in their ability to reproduce and it is much more expensive for them. Not to mention it being historically dangerous for them (not from fundamentalists, but from death in childbirth).
So biologically women are generally more selective about who they mate with. However, that doesn't mean that male-dominated societies haven't attempted to tip the scales in their favour somewhat.
Excuse me? Since when has religion had much to do with morality?
I guess you've missed a few thousand years of history?
Perhaps he has, but I haven't. Look, only a few hundred years ago people had no idea there were such things as microbes or viruses. People had no idea why poorly cooked meat was dangerous. People thought that things that smelled badly smelled badly because they were evil, or were infused with evil spirits. People decided pork was evil because pigs were dirty animals (not true, but they decided it anyway; they had very little good intel to go on then).
Evil? Immoral? Putrid or rancid? Three sides of one coin, if you're ignorant of root cause.
The purpose of proceeding historically is to substantiate the claim that morality and religion have been inseparable until very recently, and that our moral vocabulary is still deeply infused with this history.
As much as I respect Stanford, this is stupid. Morality, if we equate it with fear of death, have been inseparable due to ignorance. Had they known about microbes and the true cause of disease, they wouldn't have overloaded the word "morality." It'd have just been yet another phenom that people needed to deal with. Instead, through ignorance of microbes and viruses, religion wormed (pun intended) its way into their psyche.
I don't equate morality with fear of death. I equate it with right vs. wrong, good vs. evil, benevolent vs. predatory, cooperation vs. confrontation, ...
Thanks, but no, I don't want any of your rotten fish. You Euros eat the strangest things, sometimes.
"Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit
Exactly. I forget which popular Female Studies professor it was who said "Men can benefit from false rape accusations because it will make them more aware of rape culture"
Something to that effect, it's really scary this shit gets promoted at some schools
That's not how I see it personally -- I see Fred Phelps in the column of very religious. That's what drives his action. Misinterpretation doesn't change that. There'd be nothing to misinterpret if religion wasn't involved. He'd probably be a hater, but he'd probably have chosen some other group (1d20 vs all existing groups).
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
Good for you. It is a healthy position to have nowadays, but it has very little to do with the subject of my post.
Yes, what happened is tragic.
Yes, the guy who talked her into exposing herself is a creep (and possibly a pedophile)
But does she really have anyone to blame but herself? Seriously, some random guy on the Internet asks her to show her tits and she does it? Really??
Additionally, "cuber-bullying" is just the next wave of technophobic, attention-grabbing idiocy by the media. People get bullied every day in school and we just expect that. But this is happening on THE INTERNET, OH NO!! .
By any measure, "cyber-bullying" is a whole lot easier to shrug off because ... well, y'know that little X in the top, right-hand corner of your chat window? Click it.
She switched schools after the "cyber-bullying", was tracked down, had her boobs pic sent to friends, parents, etc.
She moved & changed schools, and it happened again.
This was not going to be solved by closing a desktop window. Nor was it confined to the Internet.
And, now listen to this you asshole, she was 13 years old when she flashed her boobs. You're going to hold her responsible when she's years away from a driver's license, never mind adulthood? That's the same mindset the sicko had that blackmailed her for further sexual imagery, "hey, she deserved it, she consented", etc.
no. i believe rape should be illegal
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
b) if a girl shows her breasts, she is a slut and a whore and should be ashamed of herself and do whatever it takes to have no one find out about it,
More generally, I'm also perplexed by the social double-standard where men who have (had) multiple sex-partners (or are sexually aggressive, for lack of a better word) are "studs", but women are "sluts". Seems like a bunch of misogynistic bullshit from insecure men to make women feel second-rate. (I'm a guy, by the way.)
Except that other women are more prone to call them sluts than men are.
You wouldn't believe how many women consider consensual one nighter as rape when it involve [sic] alcohol
Slashdot, how could this kind of misogynist bullshit reach (Score 5, Insightful) on a story about a young girl bullied into suicide by shame over sex?
Perhaps my feeling of revulsion is best summarized by Adam Smith:
We blush for the impudence and rudeness of another, though he himself appears to have no sense of the impropriety of his own behaviour; because we cannot help feeling with what confusion we ourselves should be covered, had we behaved in so absurd a manner.
Okay, but I have debated with women who said that women can't give consent when drunk, and seen a site that said likewise [I tried finding it for you, but can't]. So I don't get how drunken sex fits into the picture for those people. The decision always relies on the woman, even after the act. Even if she said that everything was okay going in, it is almost as if she could revoke the consent retroactively.
testing out my trending skills
Just over a year ago, my daughter was murdered.
Condolences!
Perhaps piggy back on another story, in hope that someone will be able to render some assistance?
If that's what it takes, then yes.
I wish I had more to offer.
Part of the story can be found here - Remember Rose French
I have that open in another tab and shall read it at a later time.
Best of luck.
By the way, I wasn't serious about the rant thing. I apologize if you took offense.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Y'know, I thought I was that kind of person when I was raised in a religion (Mormon, if you're wondering), and that I'd turn into some sort of lowlife if I ever turned my back on it. But it turns out that when I dumped the mythological load that was weighing me down, I wasn't that kind of person underneath it all. It was just the brainwashing done by my religion that had convinced me I'd be that way without it. I'd bet most religious people are the same way, too (religious *leaders*, on the other hand, are basically all crooks).
Waking up from the "God" dream did nothing but improve my moral fiber, because now I do what is right *because* it is right. Not because I'm afraid of burning.
Thought there was a case somewhere that said that the person needed to be able to give consent at all stages. This case had to do with causing the partner to become unconscious and then have sex with them. It was discussed beforehand. But the court ruled that since the subject had become unconscious, the person was unable to continue to give consent and thus was illegal.
Except she was 13.
Evil? Immoral? Putrid or rancid? Three sides of one coin, if you're ignorant of root cause.
You may have something there as to dietary law, but I'm not sure you're going to be able to follow that path and get close to:
The second is this, ‘YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.” Mark 12:31
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Welcome to reality. People aren't dependable. There is no better deal. So tread with caution.
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Someone else alluded to all that and I get and understand it. However, the double standard has no place in modern society. Women should be able to have control over their bodies as much, if not more than, men, which includes sex without a derogatory label not otherwise applied to men equally promiscuous.
Histo-biology would point to women being more selective, but it's not a requirement. In some whale species, females mate with multiple partners at the same time in an attempt to get the best male. (The Discovery Channel rocks.)
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
the biggest problem is that we don't know if the by 'anonymous' targeted person actually IS the one who is responsible, we have to take 'anonymous' word for it. And it's not that 'anonymous' is as reliable as a lot of people think, anyone can claim he/she's 'anonymous' also people with bad intentions (which IMHO are a lot of 'anonymous' people as they don't care about nothing as their own views)..
It would behoove us to come up with something a little more utilitarian, and a wee bit less subjective.
Universal Declaration Of Human Rights
No sig today...
If X and Y are mutually exclusive, a belief in X is a disbelief in Y.
You do understand that the whole concept of anonymity is to have no identity? Anonymous isn't a group of individuals because you can't be certain who is or isn't a member because they are all anonymous. The moment they get an individual identity, they are no longer anonymous.
Last weekend, a video was posted threathening dutch ISP and the dutch content mafia with a cyber attack by Anonymous, it turned out to be a kid who had no relation with them but there was no way to know this because you can't call up anon and ask them if anon, no the other anon, not that anon, you know the anon who knowns anon is really an anon. Well you could but the poor sap you end up calling randomly probably will hang up on you.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Anyone of any religion could serve under Napoleon and rise through the ranks. Good luck doing that in the British army of those days.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Revenge is the best you can get.
I am not a dreamer, I don't believe it worth letting a million criminals go free to save one innocent man from jail. Because the reality is that countless criminals go free and STILL we end up with innocent people going to jail.
Revenge might not solve anything but it sure feels good and doing nothing doesn't solve anything either and makes you feel lousy.
So, unless you can offer justice, I go for revenge.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Since its inception.
An asshole thought he could do anything on the internet without consequence, so did another asshole. There are consequences to your actions, suck it up.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
You ask, why those at school, presumably in her class didn't have the insight of a fully trained shrink and could diagnose her as having issues and offer support?
Because they are 12 year olds! And her teachers? Over-worked dealing with hundreds of students each with their own problems. A quiet shy girl who isn't noticed, doesn't get noticed. The bullies get the support because they make a lot of noise, the quiet ones who commit suicide of the bullies, they don't appear on the radar.
And the bullies blame their victims for being weak, see countless comments so far on this subject. It is the way of the world.
And you are supporting it because you blame the world and the victim more then the bullies.
Ten to one, you were/are a bully yourself.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
This is not new. The first incident like this (that I know of) was in South Korea in 2005. It (and similar events) culminated in a law essentially stripping out anonymity online. It hasn't worked that well as most anonymous forums have simply moved overseas.
This is one of the truly new problems created by the Internet, and I look forward to watching how society struggles with coming up with a solution for it. The "lynch mob" analogy doesn't really work since members of mob aren't truly anonymous (though the KKK tried to achieve that), and the potential geographic separation between tormentor and victim is literally worldwide. So while there have been similar problems in the past, none are quite like this one.
I have karma to burn.
If the muslim may not need to feel attacked with all the anti muslim propaganda and advertising, and they should bravely ignore all insult, THEN that teen dying is her own damn fault and the troll asshole which pushed her to do it left alone.
You can't have it any other way, or you have to admit the muslim have a point.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Evil? Immoral? Putrid or rancid? Three sides of one coin, if you're ignorant of root cause.
You may have something there as to dietary law, but I'm not sure you're going to be able to follow that path and get close to:
YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.
I don't have to. It's a different path.
I'm an atheist, but it's still not that hard to do. Personally, I prefer to go back about a thousand years to Aristotle (paraphrased): "We love in others that which we see in them of ourselves."
"Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit
Even in Australia, it is not clear that this would be prosecutable offense under felony murder. The link between the felony and the suicide may not be strong enough. Though felony murder has been abolished by statute in the UK, the Mens rea in murder requires only intent to injure. Thus, in practice, the law has not diverged from other common law jurisdictions as much as you would have thought.
Morality is more or less an extension to Empathy. "I can see how action X will make Y feel bad, and I would not like anyone to do it to me either". Maybe some need a religious underpinning to be moral, but not everyone.
Just because for some 2000 years, religion == history, there's no reason to conclude that religion == morality, or that atheism != morality.
Yes, we've had a couple of evil "atheistic" governments, but not as many as there have been evil religious governments through the last 2000 years.
In fact, I'd claim that as soon as any government claims to be guided by a religious direction of some sorts, someone from a competing religious belief system, or none-believers, is going to get hurt.
I don't buy this. Yes, she screwed up by showing her breasts to some guy. That was her mistake. His crime was being an adult and talking a child into doing something she shouldn't be doing and then using those pictures to try and blackmail her into getting even more from her.
How is it not a form of bullying when the pervert in question went out of his way to make sure her friends and family all saw the resulting pictures for the simple reason that he was angry at her for not getting what he wanted?
Yes, morality has been closely tied to religion in the West. But if you look at what that morality actually was, most of it would be considered immoral by today's standards. Everything from slavery to burning people for heresy was sanctioned and enforced by the Church. So it's just as correct to say that there were many fine, upstanding individuals that were good IN SPITE of being religious. And in the last 100 years there have been many governments, both religious and atheist that have done unspeakable things. The reason the atheist ones did more evil is that they survived longer - after defeating the religious ones.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all have believing that nonsense
No, they don't. The part about it being "a man" is called anthropomorphism, which the three reject. The part about it being "in the sky" is called idolatry, which the three also reject. The only correct point would be the "invisible" one, but even that arguably so given that's a property of every abstract out there (numbers, logical concepts etc.).
I'm not sure if your question was merely rhetorical, or if you are a {troll|idiot}.
Well, my guess is that both you and the OP are going for a straw man fallacy, but if not, we can continue.
Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
Why even bother with felony murder. The guy can be charged with any number of other crimes (production of child porn, distribution of child porn, stalking, harassment,...........) Add that all up and he'll spend a good few years in prison - and I don't think child pornography is a 'good' crime to be imprisoned for.
But isn't that a big double standard? If two people go out, both get stupid drunk and have sex, why is that considered a one sided rape? If consent laws are to be enforced, then charge them both.
It might be connected to religions still prohibiting the use of contraception, even though it also helps prevent the spread of most STDs. AND many 'religious' politicians are against vaccinating children against viruses like the HPV, with some claiming that it would encourage teenage sex.
And yet you leave out the mass killings that presaged the democides of the 20th century that came from these proto-leftists. Can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs, amiright? (And ironically, the man who coined that phrase was one of the mass-murderers who lead the Reign of Terror)
(Zechariah 14:1-2 NAB)
Lo, a day shall come for the Lord when the spoils shall be divided in your midst. And I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem for battle: the city shall be taken, houses plundered, women ravished; half of the city shall go into exile, but the rest of the people shall not be removed from the city. (Zechariah 14:1-2 NAB)
I'm probably being unfair. This religion only represents about 1/6 of the worlds population and is the likely religion of the parent poster. There are probably many religions which are actually against rape.
Keep mind mind that is Old Testament, and it is the underpinnings for the religions that 2/3 of the world follow.
Seems clear to me that it's just another example of some maladjusted hackers wanting to show people that they are the biggest bully around. That the only reason you're safe, is because they haven't targeted you yet.
They did this to see what would happen, not for some vigilante justice.
it does make it a reasonable description of their God.
Only if the sentence "the belief that an explosion in a junkyard can produce a fully functional airplane" counts as a reasonable description of evolution, which it evidently doesn't. Straw man is as straw man goes.
Thus, unless one's going to talk about an existing sect within one of the existing branches of one of the existing Abrahamic religions, said sect actually believing and preaching that God indeed and literally is an "invisible man in the sky", that argumentative path doesn't apply. And even if there is such a sect, any argument trying to disprove that specific belief about God applies only to that sect, not to any of the other ones, which comprise the majority of those religions.
Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
I understand this is a sad story, but look at the search trends for the alleged guy. On sat Oct 13, 33 web searches for his name. That is an awful low number for a bunch of kids looking for this guy on a Saturday night. http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=Kody%20Maxson&date=today%201-m&cmpt=q
That they are not fully-formed adults is a red herring because no one wakes up one day a mature, responsible adult. As minors grow, they become steadily more capable of certain things and being held accountable for them. Furthermore, you are treating several different topics as though they require the same level of maturity to handle properly. It is complete and utter bullshit to say that if we can expect a 14 year old to obey rules and laws about assault and battery at the same level as a legal adult that we can expect them to be able to vote or drink alcohol without supervision because there are serious differences of kind between obeying rules and laws on the use of force, drinking and voting.
I just finished reading TFA, and going back to the article TFA links to, and watching the video... My first comment. What. The. Fuck. This wasn't "bullying", this was sexual extortion. I would consider it in the same class of crimes as rape, and should hold similar punishment standards. Not simply bullying. But TFA really confuses me- they keep using the term "bully" and switching between talking about the man who blackmailed her and the people around her who punched and kicked and gave shady glances and posted mean comments on Facebook. The others around her? They were bullies. But nobody seems to be going after them, even if they are the "problem". TFA reeks of "something must be done about this problem and oh here is another worse problem to compare it to that led to this one". And I feel that the article is pushing a "Cyberbullying must be stopped" agenda, which is a shame, because it detracts from the tragedy rather than adds anything to it. When I read it, I read "I have an agenda and I'm using this incident of malice and torment to further my agenda".
But in the last 100 years, experience with officially atheist governments have not produced happy outcomes, by and large. Indeed, they have been terribly bloody.
But how is it fair to describe those countries exclusively as being "atheist governments" as if atheism was the driving force behind their actions? Can you draw a necessary connection between atheism and the ideologies that drove those regimes? What you're doing is the equivalent of saying that Iran's government is theistic, so that explains why they oppress women. Theism itself doesn't necessary imply actions, as one could be a theist and not act upon it in any way. However, theism as a term carries more baggage than atheism. How many theists have gods to which they ascribe no attributes?
Let's consider a government who outlaws theism. Let's say that this government is atheistic in nature, but how does a personal lack of belief in gods lead to the notion that all theistic belief should be purged? No, that's something else.
Unless you can draw a necessary connection from atheism, what you have there is as useful as stating that a lack of interest in sport is causing a decline in tennis in favour of football.
-- Using the preview button since 2005
Mods - so you think this kid's suicide is Score:5, Funny? What the hell is wrong with you?
Republican leadership = Idiocracy
Comment removed based on user account deletion
It's currently a majority but the total is actually about 55% to 56%.
http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html
Nice pie chart here.
1.Christianity: 2.1 billion
2.Islam: 1.5 billion
3.Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist: 1.1 billion
4.Hinduism: 900 million
5.Chinese traditional religion: 394 million
6.Buddhism: 376 million
7.primal-indigenous: 300 million
8.African Traditional & Diasporic: 100 million
9.Sikhism: 23 million
10.Juche: 19 million
11.Spiritism: 15 million
12.Judaism: 14 million
13.Baha'i: 7 million
14.Jainism: 4.2 million
15.Shinto: 4 million
16.Cao Dai: 4 million
17.Zoroastrianism: 2.6 million
18.Tenrikyo: 2 million
19.Neo-Paganism: 1 million
20.Unitarian-Universalism: 800 thousand
21.Rastafarianism: 600 thousand
22.Scientology: 500 thousand
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
lol.. the parent is a 5 and this one was moderated to a 0.
I'm probably being unfair. This religion only represents about 1/6 of the worlds population and is the likely religion of the parent poster. There are probably many religions which are actually against rape.
Perhaps BOTH atheists and religious people were gunning for it.
lol.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
"Society's rejection of morality and ethics leads to this."
ah, so you have some predefined morality you want to shove down everyone's throat, nice.
" Atheism leads to this. "
have you even read the bible?
" The culture of consent and contraception, "
yes, force women to your will and make then have babies every year. You sure are a winner, pal.
Protip: Even though belief and religions have been on the decline, there has been consistently less crime since the 70's.
I'm sorry, did I interrupt you talking out of your ass?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Or listen to others who think even the purpose of bringing such sick and twisted mentality is a good debating point.
Various religious teachings also talk about stoning to death people who have done any of the above.
Today in our 'enlightened' world, we have lawyers, that we all pay for, help to acquit people who are beyond guilty, because of government officials who also follow a lot of the above, and not in the name of religion, but because they're sick twisted individuals.
How about just accept that the fault lies with the person, and not any group they are aligned with. All that is is an excuse to hide behind. It's time we all grew up from hanging on the skirt of mommy and grew a pair and start taking responsibility for everything we say and do and stop worrying so much about the other person.
"But does she really have anyone to blame but herself? "
Of course, the guy who bullied her.
"Seriously, some random guy on the Internet asks her to show her tits and she does it? Really??"
no, not really,.. There as far more to it then that.
" People get bullied every day in school and we just expect that."
no we don't. If anything you highlight medias compliance with bulling. It's not right, and should be highlighted when ever it happens online or in meatspace.
People are easy to manipulate and children have very little or no experience dealing with the raw emotion they feel.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Did you watch this week's Dexter? A little bit scary to say, but it kind of had a point.
"What would you expect from the, "My client is innocent" crowd. "
?? So being blamed equals guilt and people wanting to defend there innocent are wrong to do so? Are you stupid?
" No acts of vigilantism have been carried out"
Yes they have. Vigilante doesn't just mean violent punishment.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Then why did Marx quote from the Bible?
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Yea, and if you kept reading Judges, you'd see that they were offered the women as optional wives, no where do I see that it allowed raping them.
Later in Numbers it talks about keeping them as slaves/labor, which in that period was more than allowed, religious or not. It again does not state about raping them or in any way forcing themselves on them.
Deuteronomy, when they talk about 'enjoying the spoils', they're actually talking about the food and wine. If you read other translations, 'enjoy the spoils' is translated as 'eat the spoil of thine enemies'. I somehow doubt they were talking about tossing the kids in a meat grinder and eating their bones.
Even further, in Deuteronomy, it states that if they found a women appealing, that they were to talk to the mother/father for a period of time, and then make her their wife, and also if they found no pleasure from having her as a wife, to release her freely.
Doesn't sound like rape to me, but I guess comments are like statistics on here. All made up for a purpose based on a point of view.
If you read before Zechariah and after Zechariah, you'll find that the ones who are taking the city, plundering the houses, and ravishing the women are the invaders, you know, the ones who, in just the next chapter that the Lord said he would fight directly against.
But sure, yea, believe what you want.
And yet, the thread on alcohol sex proves I have a point.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Okay, there's several things tied up in your post. First of all, at least according to the Christians, belief in God doesn't do the trick. "Very good, even the devils believe, and it makes them tremble." Second, the Son of God came so that forgiveness would make an eternity of life bearable. Thirdly, the word repent comes from "back/again (re) hand (pente, the five fingers)". It means being able to draw your hand back from sin. The JudeoChristian Bible (Deuteronomy 30, to be exact) is very specific that we have no power to do that... but in Isaiah 53:10, it specifies that if He (the Messiah) gives his life as an offering, his descendents will live long (forever), and the Lord's will will prosper in his hand, for by knowing him, many will be justified. Elsewhere Isaiah specifies that the Holy Spirit, in whose relationship He was kept from sin, will be given in fullness to his descendants
Read about Wigglesworth, or Brengle: it does happen.
Now, on the other hand, just because a person says "yah, that's me too" doesn't make it so. As Christ himself said, a good tree cannot bear bad fruit; a bad tree cannot bear good fruit.
Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
At least one person remembered that it was Tuesday!
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Allow me to clarify the intent of my original "invisible man in the sky" comment. I did not mean to imply that any religious adult in the modern world would describe their god this way (though as a child, this is exactly the image of god I often had). I used this absurd description to illustrate how absurd the idea of a god is to me as an adult. Contradictions abound in the descriptions of what God is. As somebody pointed out above, the Bible does claim that god made us in his own image. It stands to reason then that goes does have an image, and that image is observable from some real place. We are also told that he is everywhere and in everything and invisible. We are told that Heaven and Hell are real places that people go when they die. As children we believe Heaven to be above the sky and Hell to be below the earth. These images are inescapable because people presumably believed this to be true at some point. Modern man knows there is nowhere left in either the ground nor the sky for such places to hide, so the religious mind has moved them to parallel universes, alternate planes, and other unobservable sanctuaries of the mind. We are told that he controls every detail of everything and that he is good and just and perfect. However, we observe a very imperfect world full of injustice and imperfections. The religious mind excuses these contradictions as "tests of faith." This concept makes absolutely no sense to me, and the more I think about it, the more contemptuous this conceptual God becomes. In summary, if you disagree with my deliberately absurd description of your God as an "invisible man in the sky," then by all means, present a physical description of him that is any less absurd. Hold on a moment, let me get my popcorn.... Okay, you may proceed.
No, it's not asceticism. Asceticism seems to flourish in a similar environment, but it's a sadistic kind of dominance game, which is definitely not what asceticism is. I don't think there's really a term for it, though I supose psychaitrists might have one, and it might be listed in the DSM. I suspect, though, that it's considered "normal".
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
You make a good point. As a corollary, I posit that you wouldn't believe how many inebriated rapists think "no" is foreplay.
WALSTIB!
I'll qualify some of your statements to show how this is all still withing a straw man argument, and proceed with some proper definitions:
to illustrate how absurd the idea of a god is to me as an adult.
To illustrate how absurd a children's idea of god is to an adult.
Contradictions abound in the descriptions of what God is.
Contradictions abound whenever we compare the many analogies used in trying to describe what God is when we go about simplifying it for mass consumption. Ditto for any simplification of any complex concept, look at your nearest Scientific American magazine.
As somebody pointed out above, the Bible does claim that god made us in his own image. It stands to reason then that goes does have an image, and that image is observable from some real place.
Nope. That's one such analogy. Comparisons with human attributes are quite often used because they offer some ground upon which to explain things. This is done quite directly for children, but it becomes progressively more qualified and distanced from such raw impressions as conceptual understanding advances.
We are also told that he is everywhere and in everything and invisible.
Another such child analogy is that he is somewhat like a guy who happens to have superpowers such as that of jumping around and looking everywhere, among others. This simplification is a reversal of what philosophical theology conceptualizes and reads in the myths. For anything to exist and to continue existing ('anything' includes time and space themselves), it needs a source of existentiating from which to get its continual existence, otherwise it'd instantly degrade into nothingness. Such source, in turn, must itself neither be in need of any external existentiating, nor subject to any kind of cessation (it existentiates time, so there's no 'after' in which a 'previous' active existentiating would 'stop'). So, not so much that it is "in" everything, but that it is everything, more so than any other secondary attribute of any particular thing.
The alternative to this is to suppose and infinite regression of ever more remote existentiating sources, which is logically inconsistent. Also, the rhetorical alternative of proposing the universe as the source of its own existentiating in some kind of existential inertia modeled after inertial movement, quite popular among atheists who know about this argument, doesn't take into account the fact the universe: a) is composed of degrading entities; b) is bounded to space-time, thus not exhausting all the things that aren't so bounded.
We are told that Heaven and Hell are real places that people go when they die. As children we believe Heaven to be above the sky and Hell to be below the earth. These images are inescapable because people presumably believed this to be true at some point. Modern man knows there is nowhere left in either the ground nor the sky for such places to hide, so the religious mind has moved them to parallel universes, alternate planes, and other unobservable sanctuaries of the mind.
Now, this is a proper criticism, but it has only the barest relationship with a proper concept of God. In any case, it isn't only modern man. You have religious theologians and philosophers as far back as either discipline, many of which considered saints in their respective religions, reading in these myths references to modes of human perception, not literal descriptions. So, whatever criticism you'd like to make towards literalists in this matter is fair game, as long as it isn't supposed to also encompass non-literalists, otherwise it becomes a straw man against them.
I should add that "parallel universes, alternate planes" etc. are all still physical literalism, analogies based, this time around, on badly understood science, if not science fiction.
We are told that he controls ev
Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
I find it ironic that your defense against my claims that your god doesn't exist is to call my depiction of your god a "straw man." Of coarse it's a straw man. We're talking about something that doesn't exist. Something that doesn't exist is almost the definition of a straw man.
Technically, a straw man argument is one based on a false representation of the opponent's claims. The straw man in the term "straw man argument" is an analogy of a manufactured image, an illusion, a figment, a lie, a false premise. I find it a bit too easy to apply the claim of "straw man argument" when the original discussion is about an actual straw man, a figment of humanity's collective imagination, in this case God. I get the sense that you have become comfortable using the term "straw man argument" as your default defense against any and all claims that God does not exist. It is easy for you to claim that any representation of god that you do not like is just a "straw man" because God is an amorphous concept open to broad interpretation.
I will also note that in your defense, you made no attempt to provide your own description of God. It would be predictable if your next move were to cop-out and say that God is beyond our feeble human understanding, and as such, you are are excused from providing a plausible description of him.
I find it ironic that your defense against my claims that your god doesn't exist is to call my depiction of your god a "straw man."
So, let me get this straight: you refute your own depiction of what a god is, not that of actual religious individuals, then don't see why that is an argumentative error? I'm disappoint, rage face and all. In fact, it's the first time I saw someone try to straw man the straw man argument so as to make it easier to refute a refutation based on it. That's as meta as one can get! Simply wow! :)
It is easy for you to claim that any representation of god that you do not like is just a "straw man" because God is an amorphous concept open to broad interpretation.
You're confused. In logic there's no such thing as liking or not liking. Either both sides are talking about the same subject, and hence they can arrive at some conclusion pertaining that single subject, or they are talking about different subjects and reaching conclusions that have no relationship to each other.
So, let me put it straight. Your criticism of your concept of God is good. You can perfectly demonstrate that a God as you envisioned cannot exist. I'll go even further: if such a God as you envisioned existed, he'd be evil, and our enemy, and we should combat him to the death. In fact, I'd join you in an army assembled to fight him. So, good thing he most definitely doesn't exist, eh? I'm completely with you in you atheism towards this God of yours. He most definitely doesn't exist, and in this both our hearts rejoice! :)
But, that applies to that specific concept of God of your. As for the many other concepts of God you haven't talked about, well, you haven't talked about.
I will also note that in your defense, you made no attempt to provide your own description of God.
I did. Here's it:
"For anything to exist and to continue existing ('anything' includes time and space themselves), it needs a source of existentiating from which to get its continual existence, otherwise it'd instantly degrade into nothingness. Such source, in turn, must itself neither be in need of any external existentiating, nor subject to any kind of cessation (it existentiates time, so there's no 'after' in which a 'previous' active existentiating would 'stop'). So, not so much that it is "in" everything, but that it is everything, more so than any other secondary attribute of any particular thing."
That's God as understood by the top theologians and philosophers of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, as well as of both Greek and Roman Paganisms, and in good measure Hinduism too.
So, let's do this right now: how do you refute this God, the one they all actually believe in?
Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
I have to admit that the first time I read your description of God, I had no idea what you were talking about. I did not recognize it as a description of God, and for that I apologize. I just googled "existentiating definition" and came up with nothing, so all I can do is try to infer your meaning. It sounds like you are making the argument that existence cannot continue existing without something else causing it to exist. I do not see this as a self-evident truth, nor do I see any justification for it in what you wrote. Quite honestly, it comes across as completely insane to me. I'm getting confused just trying to read it. We can agree that there are things that exist. I do not know why you assert that without God, things that currently exist would instantly degrade to nothingness. That seems like a pretty big leap of logic to me. I just realized that I'm trying to debate religion on the internet, which I already knew to be completely pointless. No matter how far we go with this, you will continue obfuscate and make excuses for the preposterous assertions of religions. You may have the last word if it makes you more comfortable in your insanity. I'm done here.
You may have the last word if it makes you more comfortable in your insanity.
And that is an example of an appeal to ridicule. :)
Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
Great and thoughtful post. Thanks. Allow me to quibble a bit. Or maybe I'm just playing wit'cha; you judge.
Just whose definition of "Right" and "Wrong" are we going to use?
Well, mine, of course silly. None of the rest of you appear to have a clue.
Jesus had no problem with slavery ...
Nor do I. Earlier in life, I held many jobs which felt a lot like slavery. I'm sure T. Jefferson's slaves were often treated better than I was. If I were allowed to actually sell myself into slavery, it would've made for a more honest transaction.
So rather than trying to hang people in the Fun-House mirror that morality is, seeing as there is no "Morality" outside of human interpretation. It would behoove us to come up with something a little more utilitarian, and a wee bit less subjective.
I think Aristotle already got that one for us. We love that which we see in others that we already appreciate in ourselves (or something like that). The problem with morality is it's always a moving target. Shivving Nazis in the back in Warsaw in 1939 would have been a dream job for me had I been alive then. I'm pretty sure that's illegal now, not to mention frowned upon.
Personally, I vote for workability.
Ah, a pragmatist. "Whatever works." I'm an idealist. "Things as they could, and should, be." If you have a wife and kids, pragmatism is the only way to go ("Happy wife makes a happy life"). Howard Hughes (and Neil Armstrong and Jimmie Doolittle and Marie Curie and Curtis LeMay ...) wouldn't have been happy being a pragmatist.
For the child rapist, molester, abuser, we have a city, on an island.
Heinlein's Coventry. I'm all for it.
You ever notice, nobody has a problem with gravity.
I beg to differ. I've been fighting gravity all my life. I hated skinning my knees as a kid, I hated falling off bicycles, and re-entry prior to safe landing on the surface of planets pees me off no end. You blow all that energy getting up there; you'd think it was energy banked for the future, but no! Damn.
Workability should aspire to be like that. Simple, quick, compassionate, and resolute. You just remove the source of difficulty and treat people like human beings until they prove otherwise.
On that, we agree; basic game theory. Don't forget to have fun doing it, though.
Oh, and life begins in October; Post-Season Baseball!
"Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit
A good person is one who does good. A bad person is one who does bad.
so if you were an actor and had to shoot someone in a scene, and i replaced your prop gun with a real loaded weapon so you shot them for real you would be a bad person?
You've a very shallow definition of "does". Shallow as a pane of glass.
"Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit
Actually double standard is probably not the correct phrasing... sexist maybe, like women don't share in the responsibility for the sexual act. I think the issue at hand involves a little context however. For instance there's never been a case of a woman slipping men Roofies to have sex with them, while the number of women being Roofied seems to be growing exponentially. The number of men who have ever been raped by women numbers in what... small single digits? One in three women in the US will be raped in their lifetime. That's what, $55,000,000 women give or take, and that's just the US, in countries where women are object or property or worse, rape is as common as passing gas. In fact millions of women are sold into sexual slavery, some as early as late infancy. Men, not so much. So yeah, its true, men don't get a fair shake in the whole drunk sex vs. rape thing. However, if you look at it in the context that our male dominated society tends to use women as semen receptacles... a little backlash is maybe not a bad thing, and if all it does is make you think twice about engaging in stupid, irresponsible, potentially dangerous activities, then maybe alls well that ends well.
A key that opens many locks is a master key. A lock that can be opened by many keys is a shitty lock.
Not saying I agree with it, but the analogy fits fairly well.
Why exactly is the lock associated with (as I presume you must mean) the female, while the male gets to be the key? Why not the other way round? When you think about it, the whole analogy makes very little sense, in fact it's really nothing but thinly disguised male-supremacist propaganda. I'm guessing you probably first learned it from some religious text or religious authority figure, very likely Christian. Which is rather interesting, don't you think?
Let the law work. That's what it's for. How dare anonymous think that they have some right or obligation to do what they did. Suppose they have the wrong guy? This very thing has happened before and is why we have the law in the first place. Suppose this fellow they think did it gets whacked, then they find out he wasn't even the guy? That has happened before too.
Learn from the past, don't repeat bad parts of it.
Child porn (aka the picture of Amanda's breasts) is a felony.
That's the sort of attitude that tied what's her name up in the courts for years for a "wardrobe malfunction."
Why in hell are we fussing about this stuff in the 21st Century? It ties up the courts, it leads kids to kill themselves, ...
"Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit
This may be my main mistake. You see, I have Asperger's. I have no empathy.
Therefore I have to form my morals by logical assumptions.
The logical assumptions that have the longest documented history in the west is Catholicism.
I have NO idea how to form morals on my own from an imaginary emotion. And strongly suspect, based on the philosophy I've seen come out of atheism in the last 200 years, that atheists don't either.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Why exactly is the lock associated with (as I presume you must mean) the female, while the male gets to be the key? Why not the other way round?
There's no gender conspiracy involved. It's entirely a product of society. Now, you'll have to pick your favourite theory as to why women are generally viewed as the gatekeepers of sex (and I'm not saying I agree with them or am taking a prescriptive stance on gender roles here), but perception tends to be reality in many social constructs. It's entirely plausible to imagine a society and/or biology where males are the sexual gatekeepers; but we don't happen to live in one of those realities at this period of time.
When you think about it, the whole analogy makes very little sense, in fact it's really nothing but thinly disguised male-supremacist propaganda.
Again, no conspiracy on my part. It's just humour - admittedly poor humour (but that's sort of the point) - that answers the question that was asked. The interpretation that it's callous, misogynistic, etc is entirely valid, but it's also a part of the explanation - the insensitivity of the joke is a clue as to why it happens to be true. Chalk that up to whatever gender-inequality theory that you prefer.
I'm guessing you probably first learned it from some religious text or religious authority figure, very likely Christian.
An interesting theory, and a perfectly reasonable guess, but sadly it's not accurate. I'm not religious (I'm an atheist at best; an anti-theist at worst) nor was I brought up to be. As for the quote, I bumped into it somewhere else on the internet.
I understand why you would be offended. I knew full well that it was a risque comment (you should see the moderation I received for it. I think I actually managed to get every single mod possible!) and that's fine, I have karma to burn and usually I'm not easily offended. The point wasn't to incite anyone though. Mostly it was just a bit of lame humour, but buried deep down there was a backhanded comment on society too. My apologies if I missed the mark on that.
...what about this precious little snowflake's (/s) parents? Why weren't they aware of what their minor daughter was doing on the internet?
You either have no children, or else you're some sort of control freak who monitors their kids 24/7.
Can you imagine the outcry on slashdot/4chan/reddit if a parent suggested banning their children from the internet until they were 18, employing a bodyguard to be with them at school and never allowing them out of the house on their own at weekends/nights?
Because that's what you'd have to do to keep them 100% safe.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
in the above scenario, shooting them is something he did.
if you need a different example, say you have donated 10's of thousands of dollars to what you thought was a great charity (thorough their legitimate looking website), yes was in fact an extremist terrorist group who committed some grand atrocity. you have then provided material support to terrorists. - you were trying to donate to charity which would be good, however you in fact provided material support to terrorists - bad.
in the same example say you knew they were not a charity but simply thought they would use the money to lobby congress/organise protests whatever to change peoples opinions towards their cause and were unaware they would commit horrendous acts.
or perhaps you knew exactly what they were doing but after weighing up the pros/cons were under the belief that the horrendous terrorist act would be of net benefit to society.
what if you were under the belief that only people who share your beliefs mattered and knew it would be of detriment others but of positive gain for your group.
in all of the above situations, you have provided material support to terrorists which has helped them commit horrendous acts. therefore by the definition "A good person is one who does good. A bad person is one who does bad." all the above would make you a bad person.
i spent five minutes thinking and all i got was this crappy sig
So the answer should be to 'create' more rape victims? Once everything is rape, rape becomes acceptable. "Oh, you were in prison for rape? So what did you do, not call her after the sex?".
What is needed is some common sense. If someone spikes a woman's drink or slips her drugs and has sex with her unconscious body, then that is rape. But if a woman drinks or takes drugs, then decides to have sex in that altered mental state, who are we to call that rape? She chose to consume those substances, knowing that they can influence her decisions. And the same thing goes for men. Both sexes need to take responsibility for their actions, not blame others for 'taking advantage' of them.
It sounds like an end-run to get around some unusual sexual behaviour without having to pass some new laws. We can give prior consent to have various organs removed while we're unconscious, but we can't give prior consent to have sex while unconscious? And I imagine that not a single couple who slept in the same bed didn't have sex initiated while one of the partners was asleep (he said sarcastically).
Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
Apparently you haven't debated this topic with people from Planned Parenthood recently. Near as I can tell, they're all about enabling statutory rape.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Now the cops have no choice but to look into the info that anonymous has posted, and i can guarantee you Anonymous were thorough.... .....either way Anonymous did the right thing...
If the cops still do nothing after this, then they are douche bags.... and let Anonymous continue
give up info to get the guy arrested....cops go after that info, arrest the guy....
or give up info to get the guy arrested....cops dont go after the guy, but vigilantes do,
either way, that guy will get whats coming to him.
Good job guys! ~~_\|/_~~
Morality is more or less an extension to Empathy. "I can see how action X will make Y feel bad, and I would not like anyone to do it to me either".
Religion takes morality in at least one direction beyond what you describe...they feel the need proselytize/impose their system of morals on others. If you limited morality to what you describe, there would be no war on drugs, insistence on teaching abstinence in schools and other areas where religious people feel the need to control what they see as immorality in others.
Whether you see it as an improved morality or a over-extended morality, religion definitely has an effect on people's morality.
"Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos!"
While I won't directly dismiss that statement, I do see that imposing a set of moral values on others aren't exclusive to religion. I do see it too in my home country, Norway, in the affairs of the state. Many would call it a social democratic nanny state.
A typical example, that most norwegians would tell you about, the alcohol policies:
When other countries say their beer is expensive, we just laugh. Because we have one of the most restrictive alcohol policies in the world (except a few muslim states). It's not banned, but has such a high tax it's outright ridiculous. Example from a few years back: One 70cl bottle of vodka: Price to Norway = 7NOK. Tax: 230NOK. Only the "Vinmonopolet" ("The wine monopoly", and yes, that is actually the real name..) are allowed to sell alcohol stronger than 4,7% outside of pubs and restaurants.
But this being a secular country, is this based on religion or politics? Hard to say, as "we" pride ourselves on our "christian heritage" (me being a heretic, not so much..), but the state is supposed to be secular. It was introduces at a point in time when christianity stood a lot stronger here than today, but that is no excuse today as Norway is the most secular country in the world. Morality through tax policies, that's how we roll. How does this enter into the issue of morality? Because the argument for this strict policy is that "some people become alcoholics, therefor we have to restrict it for everyone. Alcohol poses high costs to the state in form of health issues, therefor the state has to imbue taxes to cover these costs".
Thing is, I see religion trying to copyright moral as something inherent to religion. I do believe that is false. Any sufficiently smart human being can see that it is logical to follow atleast six or seven of the ten commandments, and that the rest is optional. That most religions adhere to a stricter set of self imposed (and somewhat illogical, depending on view) moral codes, I do not doubt. But what we would consider moral varies wildly.
if somebody is being stupid (because they are a kid) then it should not prevent them from getting a decent job later
but if they are an Evil Genius In Training then a "sealed" juvie record can get Unsealed
(i think in Criminal Minds Penelope cracked a few Juvie records for some of the UnSubs.)
Thats why Trial as An Adult is a weapon in the Juvie system.
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
Seems to me that theist governments have not been doing that well either...
Of course the reasons have little to do with that - except that theist countries with bloody history often justify their horrors via religion, but I don't blame the religion for that, nor atheism for that matter. In the end it's politics - people can be theists or atheists, governments are not people. And people have a skill to come up with ethics without religion telling them - as well as ignoring them despite of religion telling them.
At least atheists don't get to put blame on some imaginary higher being for their actions.
P.S. Not atheist myself. Not christian either.
In capitalist USA corporations control the government.
Society's rejection of morality and ethics leads to this. Atheism leads to this.
That is a ridiculously irrational statement. Someone committing a crime somehow indicates that "society rejects morality"? What "society" are you talking about exactly? Do you think crime never existed in the past and is somehow a result of modern times? Do you realise Atheists are a minority in most countries, and in the U.S. believing in God is practically a requirement to be President?
Extremists also make gross generalisations about "the failure of society". It's a childish way of looking at the world, to paint everything the same colour, by people who can't handle the world being a complex place full of many different lifestyles and beliefs.
I'm pretty sure you don't need to believe in God to consider rape and murder unethical, immoral, and just wrong.
Correct, but keep in mind ethics/morality are simply human constructs that suit a particular context. During a war, mass murder is justified. Capital punishment has been justified for ages and still is. There is no consensus on the ethics of incarceration either. One can argue that many types of punishment, eg. incarceration, are simply designed to make victims and wider society "feel better", over any other concerns that may actually be more ethical but less emotionally satisfying.
Taking a wider view, you may observe that nature does not adhere to any sense of justice, ethics or morality, at least in any human definition of the term. In nature, rape, murder, genocide, infanticide, cannibalism and injecting your parasitic young into other unsuspecting creatures are all the "right" things to do. Morality is purely and only a function of human emotions and motivations.
Or, to be more accurate, morality is a function of any highly social species, whose individuals need to work together in structured ways to achieve common goals. Ethics and morality are frameworks for species survival, nothing more.
Ethics, therefore, is certainly independent of the concept of "gods", but that does not mean religion - for all its flaws - hasn't also been a very effective way to consolidate and enforce established ethical guidelines. That is, to give society a definite structure, which is essential for any socially cooperative species. However we now have a more "forgiving" (ironically) form of government these days, in Democracy and Rule of Law, which - again, for all its flaws - is effective at giving society the structure it needs so we can all die of old age instead of syphilis.
And Marilyn Manson. He's still a bad guy, right?
I'm a retired Texas lawyer with more personal and professional knowledge about suicide than anyone should have, and a strong believer in personal privacy. I'm not up on the details of British Columbia and Canadian law but they do not have some of the restrictions on search and seizure, or liberal protections for speech and press, that we do in the U.S., and have outlawed some forms of actual or alleged hate speech that, for better or worse, we cannot. Here in Texas, it has long been a crime either to aid or to abet or encourage in individual to commit suicide, which law provides only a fine unless death or serious bodily injury results, in which event the crime in a felony carrying up to a ten year prison term. Our family and penal law also cover serious psychological child abuswe resulting in harm. Missouri enacted a law dealing with encouraging suicide after the infamous Lori Drew case. Trust me on this one, a vulnerable child or teen, etc., can be pushed to commit suicide by psychological child abuse. I have known and represented several children who had survived serious suicide attempts. One child client begged me to kill her. The best evidence available to me indicates that the completed suicide of one Texas child at nine was essentially the product of psychological abuse by peers. Indeed, any such attempt or completed suicide should be investigated for underlying child abuse. I was very close to one case where a six year old child was terrorized and thus prevented from reporting and identifying the perpetrator of sexual abuse and it turned out that the abuser making the threat was too young to qualify as a juvenile delinquent. Unfortunately, in my view, I cannot find a reported case where anyone has been prosecuted for or convicted of psychological child abuse. This is a much more serious problem than most people understand and realize.
Poetically stated. +0 Insightful because I don't have mod points today (and would have commented /way/ too much to give any out anyway.)
Every trollism an AC posts is prefixed, in my mind, with "A. Coward whined, in a weak and cowardly voice:"
She is shy because she's been taught to be shy about her body for the exact reasons I outlined in my original post. If this was a nudist colony it would be no issue. Your "she is how she is because that's how people are" circular logic seems to be the kind of argument christians tend to use.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com