A caress without consent is legally sexual assault. The fact that it's different from penetration is irrelevant for what I'm saying.
I don't claim anything about Assange. From what I heard, this guy is a douche, so I won't try do defend him. I just fight the notion that everything a man do during a sexual relation must be explicitly consented by a woman. This notion is completely unrealistic.
I particularly fight the notion that women don't have to say "no" as I believe women should be responsible for themselves.
You have sex with a woman. She gives implicit consent. After sex, you fall asleep together. When you wake up in the morning, you decide to caress her while she's still sleeping. Do you seriously believe this is sexual assault?
If a woman thinks the implicit consent she gives is automatically revoked once she falls asleep, she must either leave to go home (or asked the man to leave if it is her place) or at the very least explicitly say something like "now you don't touch me anymore" BEFORE she falls asleep. If she doesn't, it's natural to believe the consent is still valid.
As for your insult, I came from the cave of men who still have a bit of common sense.
but in a one-night stand, consent should be sought each time.
This is pretty much the view of a prostitute who's charging for each ejaculation.
In real life, consent is rarely explicitly given. When I'm caressing a women, just before penetration I do not ask if I can. As long as she doesn't say "no", I infer she accepts. If I pull out and then start a cunnilingus, I still do not ask for consent. And if after the cunnilingus I start again with penetration, once again I do not ask for consent. I just do it.
If after spending the night with a woman, I wake and feel like caressing her in the morning so she gently wake up, I still don't ask for consent. I don't wake her up first. Since we had sex, since she accepted to sleep with me after sex, I infer the consent is still valid. In real life, sex is based on implicit consent and normal expectations. In real life, once consent is given it must be explicitly revoked, or at the very least there must be valid reasons to believe the consent was implicitly revoked.
Yes, I know misandrists... I mean feminists, are trying to get all the power they can against men. Sorry, but their idea of "consent" is simply a way to abuse men. Feminists can go to hell.
I'm sure you perfectly know what's at stake here. It's certainly not some kind of sexual assault accusation from the feminist paradise called Sweden. So please, inspector Javert, cut the crap.
And change your signature. It doesn't fit your personality.
The word "catastrophe" is about an emotion, not about facts. Can you describe what will happen exactly and the consequences on our species? First question, how many people will die? 100 million? 1 billion? 6 billion? Will we go extinct?
To exchange ideas, a series of emails are much, much better than a meeting. It allows people to think and to analyze ideas without being distracted by others. It makes you focus on content rather than presentation.
Meetings are about socialization. It's for people who constantly need human contact to be able to work. Nothing more.
Without expertise, your only "objectivity" possible is the one form the few sources you got about the subject. If the only "science" book you read is the Bible, you can certainly report what the Bible said objectively, but I wouldn't call that objectivity.
Doesn't anyone remember the 80s when local currency where regularly attacked by speculators? The idea of the Euro was to end this speculation which was hurting local economy badly, at least that's how the governments sold it.
As you said, Greece's problem is that it doesn't produce much. So the solution is not with transfer payments (the justification that it will eventually ends up in Germany anyway is just idiotic), but to make Greeks actually produce something they could sell.
And what's wrong with that? When it comes to road damage, a single truck can be the equivalent of up to 50,000 cars. Trucks are the one damaging roads. Why should car owners pay for it?
This discussion was not about deterrence, that was only YOUR argument. I'm just saying YOUR argument is irrelevant. It's not me who's moving goal-posts, it's you.
So why should we not kill this guy? Do you have any reason?
What is barbaric is to spend the limited resources we have on piece of shit like this guy instead of helping innocent people. What is barbaric is to consider that criminals have more value and deserve more resources than good people. The civilized thing to do would be to kill him right now with a single bullet in the head without any kind of glorified ceremony and use the millions we'll save to help several hundred children to have a bright future instead.
You are barbaric for trying to save this criminal's life.
Why spend several hundred thousand of dollars to try to rehabilitate a criminal? Why not rather use the same money to help a few hundred innocent people who are in need to have a better future instead? Why a single criminal has more value than innocent people?
One individual may have as much merit and ability as another individual, but saying "women" have as much merit and ability as "men" is the very definition of sexism. You are the one who is sexist.
The idea that everyone has the same brain and so goes through the same development following the same linear path is wrong. Moreover the idea that morality is in strict correlation with intelligence is also wrong. Sociopaths are often highly intelligent and have successful career (including in science), most don't even commit serious crimes when they are adults, it doesn't change that they are sociopaths.
Yes, there a few examples of teenagers who were rebellious and then became productive member of society. But there are an awful lot more examples of juvenile delinquent who committed crimes after crimes during all their lives. Prisons are full of them.
Schools are full of kids who never committed a serious crime (apart from trying drugs, which to me is not a serious crime) and who will never commit any. How do you explain that if they can't fully understand the consequences of their actions?
The development of the frontal lobe is somewhat researched (certainly not well research as neuroscience is quite new and changing rapidly), but saying from those data that someone under 25 years old can't fully understand the consequences of his action is nothing but speculative interpretation.
What we are talking here is morality. So go to a any 10 years old, describe what that teenager did and the reason he did it and ask the 10 years old if this behavior was good or bad. Again, try to learn a minimum about children moral development before thinking you know enough to have an opinion, because you really don't.
You think I have a trollish behavior? Tell me... If someone begins to argue with you that the sky is not blue, but red. You show him a lot of pictures with blue skies, but he simply discard them and continue to argue the sky is red. How will you react?
Slashdot Mirror
A caress without consent is legally sexual assault. The fact that it's different from penetration is irrelevant for what I'm saying.
I don't claim anything about Assange. From what I heard, this guy is a douche, so I won't try do defend him. I just fight the notion that everything a man do during a sexual relation must be explicitly consented by a woman. This notion is completely unrealistic.
I particularly fight the notion that women don't have to say "no" as I believe women should be responsible for themselves.
You have sex with a woman. She gives implicit consent. After sex, you fall asleep together. When you wake up in the morning, you decide to caress her while she's still sleeping. Do you seriously believe this is sexual assault?
If a woman thinks the implicit consent she gives is automatically revoked once she falls asleep, she must either leave to go home (or asked the man to leave if it is her place) or at the very least explicitly say something like "now you don't touch me anymore" BEFORE she falls asleep. If she doesn't, it's natural to believe the consent is still valid.
As for your insult, I came from the cave of men who still have a bit of common sense.
This is pretty much the view of a prostitute who's charging for each ejaculation.
In real life, consent is rarely explicitly given. When I'm caressing a women, just before penetration I do not ask if I can. As long as she doesn't say "no", I infer she accepts. If I pull out and then start a cunnilingus, I still do not ask for consent. And if after the cunnilingus I start again with penetration, once again I do not ask for consent. I just do it.
If after spending the night with a woman, I wake and feel like caressing her in the morning so she gently wake up, I still don't ask for consent. I don't wake her up first. Since we had sex, since she accepted to sleep with me after sex, I infer the consent is still valid. In real life, sex is based on implicit consent and normal expectations. In real life, once consent is given it must be explicitly revoked, or at the very least there must be valid reasons to believe the consent was implicitly revoked.
Yes, I know misandrists... I mean feminists, are trying to get all the power they can against men. Sorry, but their idea of "consent" is simply a way to abuse men. Feminists can go to hell.
I'm sure you perfectly know what's at stake here. It's certainly not some kind of sexual assault accusation from the feminist paradise called Sweden. So please, inspector Javert, cut the crap.
And change your signature. It doesn't fit your personality.
And if I call and no one answer, not even an answering machine, guess what I do!
Obviously, you never were a customer.
The word "catastrophe" is about an emotion, not about facts. Can you describe what will happen exactly and the consequences on our species? First question, how many people will die? 100 million? 1 billion? 6 billion? Will we go extinct?
Getting an education is available to everyone for free. Just go to a library and read those things we call "books".
If you need to use a great tool to make a compelling presentation, it's because the content of your presentation has no interest.
To exchange ideas, a series of emails are much, much better than a meeting. It allows people to think and to analyze ideas without being distracted by others. It makes you focus on content rather than presentation.
Meetings are about socialization. It's for people who constantly need human contact to be able to work. Nothing more.
There's worse than being monitored by a camera : being monitored by your colleagues in an open space office.
Without expertise, your only "objectivity" possible is the one form the few sources you got about the subject. If the only "science" book you read is the Bible, you can certainly report what the Bible said objectively, but I wouldn't call that objectivity.
Doesn't anyone remember the 80s when local currency where regularly attacked by speculators? The idea of the Euro was to end this speculation which was hurting local economy badly, at least that's how the governments sold it.
As you said, Greece's problem is that it doesn't produce much. So the solution is not with transfer payments (the justification that it will eventually ends up in Germany anyway is just idiotic), but to make Greeks actually produce something they could sell.
Comparing the intellectual masturbation of some economists with the Manhattan project?
What's next? Comparing the drawing of 4 years old with Michelangelo's frescoes?
And what's wrong with that? When it comes to road damage, a single truck can be the equivalent of up to 50,000 cars. Trucks are the one damaging roads. Why should car owners pay for it?
Again, your point was irrelevant. It was only a straw man. Do you think I am that stupid?
This discussion was not about deterrence, that was only YOUR argument. I'm just saying YOUR argument is irrelevant. It's not me who's moving goal-posts, it's you.
So why should we not kill this guy? Do you have any reason?
Then your point is mostly irrelevant because there are other good reasons for death penalty.
Again, prison is not an effective deterrent. Do you think we should abolish prisons?
The solution is to correct this barbaric system where we spend millions of dollars on a criminal, not to keep the guy alive because of a bad system.
The purpose would be to stop spending resources on worthless people.
Just for the record, what purpose does keeping him alive serve?
What is barbaric is to spend the limited resources we have on piece of shit like this guy instead of helping innocent people. What is barbaric is to consider that criminals have more value and deserve more resources than good people. The civilized thing to do would be to kill him right now with a single bullet in the head without any kind of glorified ceremony and use the millions we'll save to help several hundred children to have a bright future instead.
You are barbaric for trying to save this criminal's life.
Why spend several hundred thousand of dollars to try to rehabilitate a criminal? Why not rather use the same money to help a few hundred innocent people who are in need to have a better future instead? Why a single criminal has more value than innocent people?
Prison is not an effective deterrent either. So what's your point?
One individual may have as much merit and ability as another individual, but saying "women" have as much merit and ability as "men" is the very definition of sexism. You are the one who is sexist.
The idea that everyone has the same brain and so goes through the same development following the same linear path is wrong. Moreover the idea that morality is in strict correlation with intelligence is also wrong. Sociopaths are often highly intelligent and have successful career (including in science), most don't even commit serious crimes when they are adults, it doesn't change that they are sociopaths.
Yes, there a few examples of teenagers who were rebellious and then became productive member of society. But there are an awful lot more examples of juvenile delinquent who committed crimes after crimes during all their lives. Prisons are full of them.
Schools are full of kids who never committed a serious crime (apart from trying drugs, which to me is not a serious crime) and who will never commit any. How do you explain that if they can't fully understand the consequences of their actions?
The development of the frontal lobe is somewhat researched (certainly not well research as neuroscience is quite new and changing rapidly), but saying from those data that someone under 25 years old can't fully understand the consequences of his action is nothing but speculative interpretation.
What we are talking here is morality. So go to a any 10 years old, describe what that teenager did and the reason he did it and ask the 10 years old if this behavior was good or bad. Again, try to learn a minimum about children moral development before thinking you know enough to have an opinion, because you really don't.
You think I have a trollish behavior? Tell me... If someone begins to argue with you that the sky is not blue, but red. You show him a lot of pictures with blue skies, but he simply discard them and continue to argue the sky is red. How will you react?