"Reverse Onus" is basically your fancy way of saying "guilty until proven innocent". No part of the onus of proof should be on the defendant - "circumstantial evidence" is not proof.
Sorry, maybe I just stepped into bizarro world here for a moment and that's why your post doesn't make sense, but... you're saying we SHOULDN'T require proof that people are causing harm, before convicting them?
Your point still stands, because in the US, the sexual age of consent is 18. So someone can give consent to be shot at, bombed, gassed, potentially captured by enemy combatants and tortured... but they're not considered mature enough to judge whether they want to jiggle their wibblies with someone else?
That something is wired differently with gays. Fixed. Whether you can define "wired differently to me" as "wired wrong" is a question you'll have to answer for yourself.
And even if they do... you think your statue is going to feel HURT? O.o
Sorry, but I disagree, parent is not flamebait. He's just trying to make the point, if I read him aright, that the whole "perverts everywhere" moral panic is just that - a moral panic with little basis.
Ah, you see, internally I'd named the interface "BitchSlapper". Therein lies the confusion! Young ones take note, giving your programming constructs sensible names is very important!
Actually... no, no they're not. They look like children with the startings of woman-features. The youngest that girls start becoming physically attractive (to me, everyone's different) is around 16ish. When I was younger it was probably 14-15. I don't doubt when I'm 50, a 20-year-old girl will seem "too young".
Well, she looked a little older (maybe 20-21) but I've been with my fiancee (slashdot fix your Unicode support, or FireFox, whichever of you is broken) since she was 17 and a half. That's perfectly legal here in Australia, of course, but in America I'd have been labelled a paedophile.
This personal example always brings it home to me just how subjective the whole shemozzle is. How about we just say that if a person is adjudged to be a competent mental adult by whatever process it is (I honestly don't know but I'd presume it's widely acceptable) that's used to determine whether an obviously-over-18 person is compus mentis? What's good for the goose is good for the gosling, and all that... >.>
...a drawn 17 year old doesn't look any different to a young 20-something. I'm fairly sure when they're talking about hentai, there's a pretty clear divide between "very young yet very physically mature" and "child". I don't think people are complaining about "photos of girls that may or may not be jailbait", they're talking about "when little sally got fingered".
It's not. At least, unless you're from one of those branches of Abrahamic religion that kind of relaxed on all the 'thou shalt not's to help convert nonbelievers.
Well, I can tell you, I found 13-year-old girls pretty damn attractive when I was 13. That doesn't make me a pedo. O.o
Another question; does a video of two donkeys getting it on count as animal porn? If not, how about a donkey getting it on with a goat? Isn't the definition of pron "media which intends to arouse prurient interest" regardless of content?
At least they seem to have moved on from the stupidity that was the "hydrogen economy". Basic back-of-the-envelope maths shows that hydrogen is a clear loser compared to battery electric vehicles etc.
19th century industrialists viewed humans as just as expendable as drayage horses. Probably more so, you have to buy horses but humans come begging for employment.
Slashdot Mirror
Because the GP poster was totally serious and not at all sarcastic, and I totally wasn't making an off-the-cuff reference to his sig.
HSOOOHW?
Well, they ban drugs to prevent drug abuse, so your logic is sound.
"Reverse Onus" is basically your fancy way of saying "guilty until proven innocent". No part of the onus of proof should be on the defendant - "circumstantial evidence" is not proof.
Sorry, maybe I just stepped into bizarro world here for a moment and that's why your post doesn't make sense, but... you're saying we SHOULDN'T require proof that people are causing harm, before convicting them?
What you say? O.o
(-1, Opinion presented as fact)
Killing people one after the other (in serial fashion) makes you a serial killer by definition.
Your point still stands, because in the US, the sexual age of consent is 18. So someone can give consent to be shot at, bombed, gassed, potentially captured by enemy combatants and tortured... but they're not considered mature enough to judge whether they want to jiggle their wibblies with someone else?
It's a gazebo, Eric. A GAZEBO.
And even if they do... you think your statue is going to feel HURT? O.o
Sorry, but I disagree, parent is not flamebait. He's just trying to make the point, if I read him aright, that the whole "perverts everywhere" moral panic is just that - a moral panic with little basis.
Ah, you see, internally I'd named the interface "BitchSlapper". Therein lies the confusion! Young ones take note, giving your programming constructs sensible names is very important!
Actually... no, no they're not. They look like children with the startings of woman-features. The youngest that girls start becoming physically attractive (to me, everyone's different) is around 16ish. When I was younger it was probably 14-15. I don't doubt when I'm 50, a 20-year-old girl will seem "too young".
That's horribly ambiguous. It could well be interpreted as "wife slaps you". Or have I just been soviet russia'd?
Well, she looked a little older (maybe 20-21) but I've been with my fiancee (slashdot fix your Unicode support, or FireFox, whichever of you is broken) since she was 17 and a half. That's perfectly legal here in Australia, of course, but in America I'd have been labelled a paedophile.
This personal example always brings it home to me just how subjective the whole shemozzle is. How about we just say that if a person is adjudged to be a competent mental adult by whatever process it is (I honestly don't know but I'd presume it's widely acceptable) that's used to determine whether an obviously-over-18 person is compus mentis? What's good for the goose is good for the gosling, and all that... >.>
Your sig fits your comment perfectly.
...a drawn 17 year old doesn't look any different to a young 20-something. I'm fairly sure when they're talking about hentai, there's a pretty clear divide between "very young yet very physically mature" and "child". I don't think people are complaining about "photos of girls that may or may not be jailbait", they're talking about "when little sally got fingered".It's not. At least, unless you're from one of those branches of Abrahamic religion that kind of relaxed on all the 'thou shalt not's to help convert nonbelievers.
Shuuuuuuuuun!
That doesn't look like pee. Eeeeew.
Well, I can tell you, I found 13-year-old girls pretty damn attractive when I was 13. That doesn't make me a pedo. O.o
Another question; does a video of two donkeys getting it on count as animal porn? If not, how about a donkey getting it on with a goat? Isn't the definition of pron "media which intends to arouse prurient interest" regardless of content?
So a video of someone being killed by a clown is perfectly OK?
BDOUS's? Nah, I don't think they exist.
At least they seem to have moved on from the stupidity that was the "hydrogen economy". Basic back-of-the-envelope maths shows that hydrogen is a clear loser compared to battery electric vehicles etc.
PhysOrg says I'm right, too.
I was thinking of the restaurant I go to occasionally. Awesome faux-meat vegetarian food.
Flamebait? I was BORN here and I would have modded it funny if I had points!
19th century industrialists viewed humans as just as expendable as drayage horses. Probably more so, you have to buy horses but humans come begging for employment.