> Rape can be committed without physical force: > blackmail, threat of firing, threats of any > other kind... or exploitation of authority > status. In short, adults having sex with > children are committing rape, in the same sense > that that rev. Moon character was...
Rape can also be committed without any kind of coercion at all: Most pedos choose victims who generally have a low sense of self-esteem or children who have a lot of problems at home.
They then will (for lack of a better term) stroke their egos, they will tell them that they understand them, that they are sexually attractive, and that they are mature enough to make decisions for themselves and that their parents are being unreasonalble. Some apparently will even offer them assistance with running away from home.
Basically, they build the child up and make them feel good about themselves for the sole purpose of having sex with them. It's a mind fuck, but from the eyes of the victim, it seems consensual.
I think it might even be more evil and insidious than physical sexual assault or sexual assault through threats of losing your job or blackmail.
I like the idea of the wall of shame, though you do have to wonder if some of the people who download the files might be law enforcement types investigating child porn on the net.
The thing that really fascinates me in this whole Napster debacle is the fact that the people who support it scream "CENSORSHIP!" when their college, employer, or whoever decides to shut them out from it. The reasons for banning Napster can be numerous, from pressuring by the RIAA to the fact that several people running it chews up bandwidth that should be used for other purposes. Actually, the reason really doesn't matter all that much, if the owner of the hardware decides to ban Napster, that's their choice. If you don't like it, find another way to get access.
Is seems that one of the biggest misconceptions a lot of these people who scream and cry when Napster goes away is with the phrase "free speech."
"Free speech" is pretty much an abbreviated phrase, the full phrase is "freedom of speech," which comes from the First amendment to the U.S. Constitution. "freedom of speech" implies that a person should have the right to say whatever they want, with exceptions for libel, slander, and national security. It does NOT mean that a person has the right to listen, read, see anything they want without paying for it. "Free" is short for "freedom," not "at absolutely no cost to you." In fact, the First amendment is there to protect the person who expresses themselves, not the person who wants to hear what the other one has to say.
If it was really a freedom of speech issue, it would be the artists themselves that would be complaining that an outlet for their expression is being cut off, not a buch of people who want something for nothing.
Just because something has been taken away from you does not mean your rights have been violated, and just because you can do something, doesn't mean you have the right to.
I thought this year's story on dog "bark-to-speech" hardware/software was pretty good.
The NPR news folks are a pretty odd bunch. About 8-10 years ago, C-SPAN simulcast All Things Considered for about a week. I seem to remember them making faces and throwing things at each other, all while maintaining that calm, professional manner of speaking.
On another note, our NPR station here is celebrating it's 50th anniversary this year, and as part of the celebration, Corey Flintoff will be speaking and performing a magic show.
Slashdot Mirror
> blackmail, threat of firing, threats of any
> other kind... or exploitation of authority
> status. In short, adults having sex with
> children are committing rape, in the same sense
> that that rev. Moon character was...
Rape can also be committed without any kind of coercion at all: Most pedos choose victims who generally have a low sense of self-esteem or children who have a lot of problems at home.
They then will (for lack of a better term) stroke their egos, they will tell them that they understand them, that they are sexually attractive, and that they are mature enough to make decisions for themselves and that their parents are being unreasonalble. Some apparently will even offer them assistance with running away from home.
Basically, they build the child up and make them feel good about themselves for the sole purpose of having sex with them. It's a mind fuck, but from the eyes of the victim, it seems consensual.
I think it might even be more evil and insidious than physical sexual assault or sexual assault through threats of losing your job or blackmail.
I like the idea of the wall of shame, though you do have to wonder if some of the people who download the files might be law enforcement types investigating child porn on the net.
The thing that really fascinates me in this whole Napster debacle is the fact that the people who support it scream "CENSORSHIP!" when their college, employer, or whoever decides to shut them out from it. The reasons for banning Napster can be numerous, from pressuring by the RIAA to the fact that several people running it chews up bandwidth that should be used for other purposes. Actually, the reason really doesn't matter all that much, if the owner of the hardware decides to ban Napster, that's their choice. If you don't like it, find another way to get access.
Is seems that one of the biggest misconceptions a lot of these people who scream and cry when Napster goes away is with the phrase "free speech."
"Free speech" is pretty much an abbreviated phrase, the full phrase is "freedom of speech," which comes from the First amendment to the U.S. Constitution. "freedom of speech" implies that a person should have the right to say whatever they want, with exceptions for libel, slander, and national security. It does NOT mean that a person has the right to listen, read, see anything they want without paying for it. "Free" is short for "freedom," not "at absolutely no cost to you." In fact, the First amendment is there to protect the person who expresses themselves, not the person who wants to hear what the other one has to say.
If it was really a freedom of speech issue, it would be the artists themselves that would be complaining that an outlet for their expression is being cut off, not a buch of people who want something for nothing.
Just because something has been taken away from you does not mean your rights have been violated, and just because you can do something, doesn't mean you have the right to.
I thought this year's story on dog "bark-to-speech" hardware/software was pretty good.
The NPR news folks are a pretty odd bunch. About 8-10 years ago, C-SPAN simulcast All Things Considered for about a week. I seem to remember them making faces and throwing things at each other, all while maintaining that calm, professional manner of speaking.
On another note, our NPR station here is celebrating it's 50th anniversary this year, and as part of the celebration, Corey Flintoff will be speaking and performing a magic show.