So, if Aunt Tilly intended to send that emoticon, then she can be prosecuted regardless of whether she intended harm. As the GP noted, she likely wouldn't be, but someone not as sympathetic might be.
Unless, of course, Aunt Tilly got busted for pot once back in the 70's. Then the media will prattle on about how she has an "existing criminal record" and convince the unwashed masses she's a filthy criminal not worthy of compassion.
This kind of legislation would apply even if nobody died in the carrying out of the activity.
And there's nothing wrong with punishment without someone dying.
True. But there is something wrong with cruel, unusual, and downright insane sentencing guidelines. Life in prison for embarrassing a politico seems a bit over the top, doesn't it?
the view of the gateway arch is much better across the river at certain spots in east st. louis than it is right at the base of the monument...
I'm not sure the risk of being mugged, raped, and/or murdered is really worth the view. There is never any reason to intentionally enter East STL... unless you're in the market for a 14-year-old prostitute.
Back in that day, the state of Alabama (I think) enacted a law that required automobile drivers to stop prior to an intersection, get out, take a lantern to the intersection, and verbally announce that an automobile is about to cross the intersection before actually doing so.
^ Remembered from an old book of stupid laws I had as a kid.
Every college I drive past these days seems to be starting up an OTR truck driver training facility. Seems they don't have a lot of faith in the alleged immediate inevitability of auto-cars.
> What we need is better geo-mapping from cities themselves
For driver less cars to work, the whole city should be wired so the google car doesn't have to recognize the red light, it would just get the information through some type of wireless transmission thus knowing it has to stop.
Translation: Won't work without taxpayer subsidized infrastructure.
I'd like to see some examples of colonial judges enacting new laws.
Also, I'd like to point out that your response is non sequitur to the point - Constitutionally, only the legislative branch can legally create laws; the only legitimate argument would be to point out somewhere in the Constitution that says otherwise.
its not about "some punk ass talking shit", its about anonymous rape and death threats against a person and/or their family. I couldn't give a shit about trolls talking shit because i don't know and therefore i don;t care about their opinion, but physically threatening my family is a different thing altogether
Then call the police and have them arrested, rather than take the law into your own hands and commit a crime yourself by physically assaulting someone.
A point which, BTW, I clearly pointed out in my last post. Apparently what i said made you too mad to actually bother reading it... Please don't hit me.
I was responding to someone who thinks he has a right to physically assault someone just because they said stuff he doesn't like. Not sure where you got "victim blaming" from.
You also don't seem to understand that the first amendment only banned congress from passing laws limiting speech. Nothing about other levels of government including the courts (common law) or even the President (as CiC he can limit soldiers speech rights).
Actually, per the Constitution only the legislature can enact laws; the judiciary and executive branches merely interpret and enforce the laws, respectively.
Thus, as the legislature is forbidden from creating laws that limit speech, by natural course the judiciary is barred from interpreting them, and the executive is unable to enforce them.
I think it qualifies as free speech. But a threat that seems likely to be acted upon may require an investigation to see if it's going to be acted upon.
Hence the difference between online and offline speech - "I'm going to rape your pets to death" is far more actionable when you're standing in front of the person's house as opposed to some maternal basement half a world away.
Where does the freedom to "say what I don't like" end and harassment begin?
That's for the law to decide. Don't be such a pussy that you can't handle some punk ass talking shit.
Besides, if the cops are going to show up either way, wouldn't the smart money be on you calling them rather than you being the idiot they're coming to arrest?
Oh, I dunno - if he means counting both the Muslim and idiot populations together, then I have to agree; there are far more idiots and Muslims combined than any other single social group.
We teach our children that making money is more important than being happy, ie 'that degree is useless' or 'don't go into that field, you won't get paid much.' Our economy is based on wealth (gotta have money to make money), and our media is obsessed with how great the rich have it (next on Cribs, some athlete's ridiculously huge mansion and garage worth more than the GDP of a small nation).
The schools, the media outlets, hell even the sports teams are owned by the same cabal of very, very wealthy people.
So, if there's a 'wealth envy' issue in America, it's cultural, and the rich have no one to blame but themselves.
Can't believe that to be the case, because that would mean the people in charge of Tesla's Marketing Department are complete morons - never has a new car salesman tried to "steer" a potential sale to their competitors.
Remember - most dealerships sell multiple makes.
Right, but from the same manufacturer. That's why the signs say things like "Ford-Lincoln-Mercury" not "Chevy-Dodge-Ford" on the sign.
Look. Tactics like these laws are simply fear. Dealerships suck. Everyone knows they suck. The only people I know who defend dealerships are people who work there.
I know that's precisely the sort of emotional response I didn't want to see. And judging from your description regarding how you think dealerships work when it comes to pushing this model or that, I'd say you don't know nearly enough about new car dealerships to make an informed judgement on the topic.
Indeed, it sounds like "Oh no, economic crisis! Not enough prisoners! We need to do something to reverse this trend and get the prisoner counts growing again!"
If you read the prospectus for one of those for-profit jails, it basically says just that - we need more laws so we can incarcerate more people so our shareholders can turn a quick, tidy profit.
Because, generally speaking, human beings aren't nearly as intelligent as we tend to consider ourselves; creatures willing to sell their entire species into slavery for the price of some petty, selfish desire, and the delusion that "maybe someday I'll be a stupid rich, avaracious fuck myself!"
Were we the pinnacle of evolution we fancy ourselves, one would think we would have overcome our instinctual urge to smash the other cavemen with rocks and take all their stuff.
Slashdot Mirror
So, if Aunt Tilly intended to send that emoticon, then she can be prosecuted regardless of whether she intended harm. As the GP noted, she likely wouldn't be, but someone not as sympathetic might be.
Unless, of course, Aunt Tilly got busted for pot once back in the 70's. Then the media will prattle on about how she has an "existing criminal record" and convince the unwashed masses she's a filthy criminal not worthy of compassion.
Most crimes have a "Mens rea" requirement - an intent to commit the crime.
Well, they used to, but sadly that often isn't the case anymore:
https://www.nacdl.org/withouti...
This kind of legislation would apply even if nobody died in the carrying out of the activity.
And there's nothing wrong with punishment without someone dying.
True. But there is something wrong with cruel, unusual, and downright insane sentencing guidelines. Life in prison for embarrassing a politico seems a bit over the top, doesn't it?
The Rage Against The Machine lyric,
has never been more appropriate, I think.
the view of the gateway arch is much better across the river at certain spots in east st. louis than it is right at the base of the monument...
I'm not sure the risk of being mugged, raped, and/or murdered is really worth the view. There is never any reason to intentionally enter East STL... unless you're in the market for a 14-year-old prostitute.
Back in that day, the state of Alabama (I think) enacted a law that required automobile drivers to stop prior to an intersection, get out, take a lantern to the intersection, and verbally announce that an automobile is about to cross the intersection before actually doing so.
^ Remembered from an old book of stupid laws I had as a kid.
Every college I drive past these days seems to be starting up an OTR truck driver training facility. Seems they don't have a lot of faith in the alleged immediate inevitability of auto-cars.
> What we need is better geo-mapping from cities themselves
For driver less cars to work, the whole city should be wired so the google car doesn't have to recognize the red light, it would just get the information through some type of wireless transmission thus knowing it has to stop.
Translation: Won't work without taxpayer subsidized infrastructure.
I'd like to see some examples of colonial judges enacting new laws.
Also, I'd like to point out that your response is non sequitur to the point - Constitutionally, only the legislative branch can legally create laws; the only legitimate argument would be to point out somewhere in the Constitution that says otherwise.
its not about "some punk ass talking shit", its about anonymous rape and death threats against a person and/or their family. I couldn't give a shit about trolls talking shit because i don't know and therefore i don;t care about their opinion, but physically threatening my family is a different thing altogether
Then call the police and have them arrested, rather than take the law into your own hands and commit a crime yourself by physically assaulting someone.
A point which, BTW, I clearly pointed out in my last post. Apparently what i said made you too mad to actually bother reading it... Please don't hit me.
I was responding to someone who thinks he has a right to physically assault someone just because they said stuff he doesn't like. Not sure where you got "victim blaming" from.
You also don't seem to understand that the first amendment only banned congress from passing laws limiting speech. Nothing about other levels of government including the courts (common law) or even the President (as CiC he can limit soldiers speech rights).
Actually, per the Constitution only the legislature can enact laws; the judiciary and executive branches merely interpret and enforce the laws, respectively.
Thus, as the legislature is forbidden from creating laws that limit speech, by natural course the judiciary is barred from interpreting them, and the executive is unable to enforce them.
He's referring to how 'heresy' was used in previous cultures by authority figured as a means of silencing critics.
Read a book!
Manipulative disruptive and threatening behavior, I agree with what you said about that.
Then I suppose the majority of Parliament should turn themselves over to the authorities poste-haste, wouldn't you say?
I think it qualifies as free speech. But a threat that seems likely to be acted upon may require an investigation to see if it's going to be acted upon.
Hence the difference between online and offline speech - "I'm going to rape your pets to death" is far more actionable when you're standing in front of the person's house as opposed to some maternal basement half a world away.
Where does the freedom to "say what I don't like" end and harassment begin?
That's for the law to decide. Don't be such a pussy that you can't handle some punk ass talking shit.
Besides, if the cops are going to show up either way, wouldn't the smart money be on you calling them rather than you being the idiot they're coming to arrest?
Oh, I dunno - if he means counting both the Muslim and idiot populations together, then I have to agree; there are far more idiots and Muslims combined than any other single social group.
Idiots are rather prolific, after all.
Nothing says luxury like simulated wood grain accents.
... and Bose stamps on your cheap Chinese speakers.
ordinary quantum optics lab
Something about the wording in that phrase gives me the urge to search Instructables for a how-to...
That's what I was thinking. Sure beats some manufacturers, whose idea of a "premium" vehicle is a base model with nicer trim and a few extra parts.
We teach our children that making money is more important than being happy, ie 'that degree is useless' or 'don't go into that field, you won't get paid much.' Our economy is based on wealth (gotta have money to make money), and our media is obsessed with how great the rich have it (next on Cribs, some athlete's ridiculously huge mansion and garage worth more than the GDP of a small nation).
The schools, the media outlets, hell even the sports teams are owned by the same cabal of very, very wealthy people.
So, if there's a 'wealth envy' issue in America, it's cultural, and the rich have no one to blame but themselves.
Remember - most dealerships sell multiple makes.
Right, but from the same manufacturer. That's why the signs say things like "Ford-Lincoln-Mercury" not "Chevy-Dodge-Ford" on the sign.
Look. Tactics like these laws are simply fear. Dealerships suck. Everyone knows they suck. The only people I know who defend dealerships are people who work there.
I know that's precisely the sort of emotional response I didn't want to see. And judging from your description regarding how you think dealerships work when it comes to pushing this model or that, I'd say you don't know nearly enough about new car dealerships to make an informed judgement on the topic.
Indeed, it sounds like "Oh no, economic crisis! Not enough prisoners! We need to do something to reverse this trend and get the prisoner counts growing again!"
If you read the prospectus for one of those for-profit jails, it basically says just that - we need more laws so we can incarcerate more people so our shareholders can turn a quick, tidy profit.
Voting for evil scumbags means you're an idiot
But if all the candidates are evil, that means the only non-idiotic (smart) thing to do is: don't vote.
No, no, it just means that putting Mickey Mouse or Hitler down as a write-in candidate is actually a much smarter joke than we thought it was.
Because, generally speaking, human beings aren't nearly as intelligent as we tend to consider ourselves; creatures willing to sell their entire species into slavery for the price of some petty, selfish desire, and the delusion that "maybe someday I'll be a stupid rich, avaracious fuck myself!"
Were we the pinnacle of evolution we fancy ourselves, one would think we would have overcome our instinctual urge to smash the other cavemen with rocks and take all their stuff.