The US' average education has been going downhill steadily in the last two decades or so.
I agree, and that's pathetic. I could never have imagined that the garbage we had before would get even worse. Our education system was always garbage, honestly.
But really, many other countries have awful education systems, too (not that that improves the situation), and the ability to score well on poorly-designed tests doesn't show otherwise.
You mean, Americans forget what they've learnt unless they use the knowledge within a few months or so.
I don't know if that's what he meant, but if I were in his place, that's not what I would have meant to say. Honestly, nonsensical standardized tests show little.
Patents are disgusting to begin with, so this entire situation is yet another example of government corruption (and nothing to do with one specific party, as even the party that claims to want small government largely loves government-enforced monopolies over ideas and procedures).
Because a 22 year old will most certainly be taking advantage of that 14 year old.
Where did you get that nonsense, and how does it justify a blanket ban? Since when it collective punish okay in any truly free country? Furthermore, anyone can abuse their authority in a relationship.
that I could get into the bedroom with a snap of my fingers because emotionally they are naive and immature.
This is just silly. Most adults are overgrown children, and many people can manipulate full grown adults quite easily, so what's with this irrational nonsense? Children are not innocent snowflakes that need to be protected, and they especially shouldn't be when you end up with nonsense like these laws.
That's nonsense; it's legal garbage and has nothing to do with reality. In fact, as far as I'm aware, that is considered statutory rape, not actual rape. The law could say that the age of consent is 30, and according to your logic, that would mean we'd have much more rape on our hands.
So wait...you're saying the GP is bad because only 'bad' people use facebook and his friends are on facebook, and people are judged on the quality of their friends? Isn't that circular logic?
What?
Or are you saying he's somehow 'weak' for using available technology to contact the friends?
I'm saying he's an idiot for throwing privacy out the window by using Facebook and/or similar garbage.
where it's okay as long the age difference is small enough.
Which doesn't make sense. What if a 14 year old consents to sexual intercourse with a 15 year old? How is that any worse than the same 14 year old doing so with a 22 year old? It is 100% possible for such a thing to happen, and the law needs to get rid of this 'protect the children' mentality.
What is 'meaningful' consent? Do you mean that because their brains are not fully developed, they are not capable of consenting? This is false. Some children are fully capable of understanding the ramifications that their actions can have, and others (like many adults) are not. Using such logic, you could make sexual intercourse illegal in general, as many adults do things that they later regret because they're nothing more than overgrown children.
This is just silly. Just because you think children are 'innocent' little angels, that doesn't mean such a delusion reflects reality. 'Meaningful' consent is utterly meaningless.
'Abuse of authority' can happen in any relationship; men are typically more physically powerful than women, for instance, and one man/woman can be stronger than their partner(s).
By "statutory rape," are you referring to merely having sexual intercourse with someone below a certain age, or what?
Figuring out who is talking to whom is a basic function of any functioning intelligence organization. We are talking spycraft going back centuries here... If they don't de-anonymize Tor, how are they even supposed to know if the communications are foreign or domestic?
Simply put, they don't; it's immoral.
I'm not saying the information cannot be mis-used, or that it's impossible for them to retain records they should not be retaining. All I'm saying is that an anonymous Tor utterly keeps them from doing one of their most basic jobs. They don't even have the opportunity to do the right thing
It keeps them from doing their jobs? Spying on everyone, you mean? Good. I only wish there was a perfect solution that made everyone 100% anonymous and made them completely incapable of doing their immoral nonsense.
At some unspecified point in the future, you'll agree with me. I know this because I can see into the future. Furthermore, the fact that you may change your views at a later time means that your current arguments are all completely incorrect!
I wonder just how old you have to be before you'll "grow up" (nevermind the fact that it's not relevant at all). I'm over 30, so at what point will I become a government bootlicker like yourself?
Most pathetically of all, you haven't actually tried to give a single reason why we should all be afraid of the big, bad bogeymen who are supposedly out to get us; it sounds like you bought into government scaremongering to me. Who is living in a fantasy land at this point? You may as well be saying that the TSA molesting people at airports is a good thing.
Then you see things as an idiot sees them. Bravery != stupidity.
Bravery is not necessarily stupidity, but in this case, you're giving the government untold amounts of power so they can run a corrupt organization because, hey, everyone else is doing it! That is pathetic. You may believe that the bogeymen will get us if the NSA were to be destroyed, but that's just your delusion, and it also demonstrates how willing you are to trade away freedom for safety. You deflect all accusations of cowardice by foolishly accusing the other person of equating stupidity with bravery, but that does nothing but show you are a coward and are too ashamed to admit it.
You must be very young to see the world this way.
Ah, yes; anyone who disagrees with you is young, which is completely relevant to the conversation somehow! The same thing could be applied to you, but for different reasons (such as being foolish enough to trust government thugs with so much power).
It's really an insult to hear that adults don't have principles. Just because you're a naive coward and you happen to be an adult, that doesn't mean all other adults are like you.
Ideals are things to strive for -- not actual implementation plans.
And you're doing very poorly at striving for them.
I'm not confusing anything with anything. We're supposed to be the land of the free and the home of the brave, not the land of the cowards who follow what everyone else does. If we want to be the land of the free and the home of the brave, we'd better start acting like it. Having principles is most certainly not stupid.
Name calling is the best you can do?
I call it as I see it, and I see too many cowards who would rather sacrifice freedom and risk government abuse than do what's right.
When your shitty little country does that, let me know; otherwise, you have no high horse to ride in on.
I live in the US, so my country isn't very small, now is it?
And that's the problem right there - "many people" believe so. Do you want the conviction depend on whether the jury happens to believe something is morally wrong, or do you want it to depend on whether the law says it's illegal?
Juries will rule as they see fit regardless. If the mob mentality is powerful, and it is, that will happen whether or not there is an age of consent.
But really, how is a blanket ban any better? That just ensures that people will be punished (theoretically).
And that requires you to define exactly what "rape" means.
And that's a problem because...?
"Asking for", as in "supporting a course of action that will certainly result in them becoming more prevalent".
I seriously don't think that we should give up on freedom just because imbeciles will form mobs and oppose us every step of the way. Fight against the mob, not give up.
And for all that, children still need to be protected.
Everyone needs to be protected from rapists.
Also, you're doing the exact same thing here that allows "think of the children" to be used as an excuse for anything: thinking with your gut instead of your head.
I'm thinking with my head, and I've decided that these laws are anti-freedom and illogical. While you suggest that we just do whatever the mob says, I suggest that we oppose them.
If the TSA was on the verge of being eliminated and angry mobs formed to stop that from happening, do we listen to them? No, because the TSA is an evil organization that strips people of their freedoms.
Which needs to be defined, for the reasons mentioned above.
The law recognizes that children and teenagers are extremely easy to manipulate into agreeing to harmful things.
That's true of anyone. Many adults are nothing more than overgrown children who often act impulsively. Furthermore, the mere fact that it would be easier on authority figures to have such laws in place does not mean that a blanket ban is justified; that's anti-freedom.
I'll tell you what buddy, when the rest of the world stops spying, I'll be for getting rid of the NSA.
What happened to being the land of the free and the home of the brave? What happened to being better than the rest? What happened to not being sniveling cowards? Is my country, the USA, just some pathetic country full of cowards who think that their government's actions are justified because numerous other countries are doing similar things?
Pathetic. But this is not unexpected from a government cheerleader.
If you are going to use that logic then you must be assuming that 9/11 is the worst that terrorists might do, which is patently false.
He's saying that our response to 9/11 was ridiculous, and it was. But freedom is more important than safety, so I believe mentioning the number of deaths due to heart disease and other such things is rather useless; that's practically only relevant to people who engage in scaremongering.
It's irrational thinking.
What's irrational is that we think the terrorists are going to get us.
I do. Even minimal knowledge of history should tell people that giving any humans so much authority simply isn't a good idea.
Or have we changed our standards that much already?
We're getting molested at airports, spied on by our own government, sent off to free speech zones, and punished when we protest without permits, among other things. Whether or not our standards changed, something is wrong.
The problem with that situation is that it might not be rape at all. Minors need protection because they lack life experience to know if they're being taken advantage of.
So it's not rape, but it's something they might regret later? That's true of absolutely anyone, but that doesn't mean we should send untold numbers of people to prison. What, you think adults are somehow perfect? We're not. Most adults are nothing more than overgrown children.
Slashdot Mirror
The US' average education has been going downhill steadily in the last two decades or so.
I agree, and that's pathetic. I could never have imagined that the garbage we had before would get even worse. Our education system was always garbage, honestly.
But really, many other countries have awful education systems, too (not that that improves the situation), and the ability to score well on poorly-designed tests doesn't show otherwise.
You mean, Americans forget what they've learnt unless they use the knowledge within a few months or so.
I don't know if that's what he meant, but if I were in his place, that's not what I would have meant to say. Honestly, nonsensical standardized tests show little.
I was starting to suspect that most people were horribly incapable
They are. What, do you think that doing well on poorly-designed tests demonstrates that you are intelligent? If so, I suggest that you think again.
That''s not relevant. The fact that other countries are worse does not make the US any better.
Patents are disgusting to begin with, so this entire situation is yet another example of government corruption (and nothing to do with one specific party, as even the party that claims to want small government largely loves government-enforced monopolies over ideas and procedures).
And women are far more emotionally attuned, and have the capabilities to be extremely manipulative as a result.
Yes, even they can be manipulative, so I don't understand this 'protect the children' nonsense one bit; it's completely irrational.
Because a 22 year old will most certainly be taking advantage of that 14 year old.
Where did you get that nonsense, and how does it justify a blanket ban? Since when it collective punish okay in any truly free country? Furthermore, anyone can abuse their authority in a relationship.
that I could get into the bedroom with a snap of my fingers because emotionally they are naive and immature.
This is just silly. Most adults are overgrown children, and many people can manipulate full grown adults quite easily, so what's with this irrational nonsense? Children are not innocent snowflakes that need to be protected, and they especially shouldn't be when you end up with nonsense like these laws.
That's nonsense; it's legal garbage and has nothing to do with reality. In fact, as far as I'm aware, that is considered statutory rape, not actual rape. The law could say that the age of consent is 30, and according to your logic, that would mean we'd have much more rape on our hands.
So wait...you're saying the GP is bad because only 'bad' people use facebook and his friends are on facebook, and people are judged on the quality of their friends? Isn't that circular logic?
What?
Or are you saying he's somehow 'weak' for using available technology to contact the friends?
I'm saying he's an idiot for throwing privacy out the window by using Facebook and/or similar garbage.
Yeah, I know, but I still constantly hear about how the US is so much better, and how brave its people are.
Forget the tests and let freedom prevail.
where it's okay as long the age difference is small enough.
Which doesn't make sense. What if a 14 year old consents to sexual intercourse with a 15 year old? How is that any worse than the same 14 year old doing so with a 22 year old? It is 100% possible for such a thing to happen, and the law needs to get rid of this 'protect the children' mentality.
What is 'meaningful' consent? Do you mean that because their brains are not fully developed, they are not capable of consenting? This is false. Some children are fully capable of understanding the ramifications that their actions can have, and others (like many adults) are not. Using such logic, you could make sexual intercourse illegal in general, as many adults do things that they later regret because they're nothing more than overgrown children.
This is just silly. Just because you think children are 'innocent' little angels, that doesn't mean such a delusion reflects reality. 'Meaningful' consent is utterly meaningless.
'Abuse of authority' can happen in any relationship; men are typically more physically powerful than women, for instance, and one man/woman can be stronger than their partner(s).
By "statutory rape," are you referring to merely having sexual intercourse with someone below a certain age, or what?
Yes, signals intelligence is evil.
Figuring out who is talking to whom is a basic function of any functioning intelligence organization. We are talking spycraft going back centuries here... If they don't de-anonymize Tor, how are they even supposed to know if the communications are foreign or domestic?
Simply put, they don't; it's immoral.
I'm not saying the information cannot be mis-used, or that it's impossible for them to retain records they should not be retaining. All I'm saying is that an anonymous Tor utterly keeps them from doing one of their most basic jobs. They don't even have the opportunity to do the right thing
It keeps them from doing their jobs? Spying on everyone, you mean? Good. I only wish there was a perfect solution that made everyone 100% anonymous and made them completely incapable of doing their immoral nonsense.
At some unspecified point in the future, you'll agree with me. I know this because I can see into the future. Furthermore, the fact that you may change your views at a later time means that your current arguments are all completely incorrect!
I wonder just how old you have to be before you'll "grow up" (nevermind the fact that it's not relevant at all). I'm over 30, so at what point will I become a government bootlicker like yourself?
Most pathetically of all, you haven't actually tried to give a single reason why we should all be afraid of the big, bad bogeymen who are supposedly out to get us; it sounds like you bought into government scaremongering to me. Who is living in a fantasy land at this point? You may as well be saying that the TSA molesting people at airports is a good thing.
Then you see things as an idiot sees them. Bravery != stupidity.
Bravery is not necessarily stupidity, but in this case, you're giving the government untold amounts of power so they can run a corrupt organization because, hey, everyone else is doing it! That is pathetic. You may believe that the bogeymen will get us if the NSA were to be destroyed, but that's just your delusion, and it also demonstrates how willing you are to trade away freedom for safety. You deflect all accusations of cowardice by foolishly accusing the other person of equating stupidity with bravery, but that does nothing but show you are a coward and are too ashamed to admit it.
You must be very young to see the world this way.
Ah, yes; anyone who disagrees with you is young, which is completely relevant to the conversation somehow! The same thing could be applied to you, but for different reasons (such as being foolish enough to trust government thugs with so much power).
It's really an insult to hear that adults don't have principles. Just because you're a naive coward and you happen to be an adult, that doesn't mean all other adults are like you.
Ideals are things to strive for -- not actual implementation plans.
And you're doing very poorly at striving for them.
I'm not confusing anything with anything. We're supposed to be the land of the free and the home of the brave, not the land of the cowards who follow what everyone else does. If we want to be the land of the free and the home of the brave, we'd better start acting like it. Having principles is most certainly not stupid.
Name calling is the best you can do?
I call it as I see it, and I see too many cowards who would rather sacrifice freedom and risk government abuse than do what's right.
When your shitty little country does that, let me know; otherwise, you have no high horse to ride in on.
I live in the US, so my country isn't very small, now is it?
And that's the problem right there - "many people" believe so. Do you want the conviction depend on whether the jury happens to believe something is morally wrong, or do you want it to depend on whether the law says it's illegal?
Juries will rule as they see fit regardless. If the mob mentality is powerful, and it is, that will happen whether or not there is an age of consent.
But really, how is a blanket ban any better? That just ensures that people will be punished (theoretically).
And that requires you to define exactly what "rape" means.
And that's a problem because...?
"Asking for", as in "supporting a course of action that will certainly result in them becoming more prevalent".
I seriously don't think that we should give up on freedom just because imbeciles will form mobs and oppose us every step of the way. Fight against the mob, not give up.
And for all that, children still need to be protected.
Everyone needs to be protected from rapists.
Also, you're doing the exact same thing here that allows "think of the children" to be used as an excuse for anything: thinking with your gut instead of your head.
I'm thinking with my head, and I've decided that these laws are anti-freedom and illogical. While you suggest that we just do whatever the mob says, I suggest that we oppose them.
If the TSA was on the verge of being eliminated and angry mobs formed to stop that from happening, do we listen to them? No, because the TSA is an evil organization that strips people of their freedoms.
Which needs to be defined, for the reasons mentioned above.
Not if it's removed, which is 100% possible.
The law recognizes that children and teenagers are extremely easy to manipulate into agreeing to harmful things.
That's true of anyone. Many adults are nothing more than overgrown children who often act impulsively. Furthermore, the mere fact that it would be easier on authority figures to have such laws in place does not mean that a blanket ban is justified; that's anti-freedom.
I'll tell you what buddy, when the rest of the world stops spying, I'll be for getting rid of the NSA.
What happened to being the land of the free and the home of the brave? What happened to being better than the rest? What happened to not being sniveling cowards? Is my country, the USA, just some pathetic country full of cowards who think that their government's actions are justified because numerous other countries are doing similar things?
Pathetic. But this is not unexpected from a government cheerleader.
If you are going to use that logic then you must be assuming that 9/11 is the worst that terrorists might do, which is patently false.
He's saying that our response to 9/11 was ridiculous, and it was. But freedom is more important than safety, so I believe mentioning the number of deaths due to heart disease and other such things is rather useless; that's practically only relevant to people who engage in scaremongering.
It's irrational thinking.
What's irrational is that we think the terrorists are going to get us.
I don't know if they can be counted imbeciles.
I do. Even minimal knowledge of history should tell people that giving any humans so much authority simply isn't a good idea.
Or have we changed our standards that much already?
We're getting molested at airports, spied on by our own government, sent off to free speech zones, and punished when we protest without permits, among other things. Whether or not our standards changed, something is wrong.
Nice try, but absurd examples aren't going to make your mentality any less ridiculous.
The problem with that situation is that it might not be rape at all. Minors need protection because they lack life experience to know if they're being taken advantage of.
So it's not rape, but it's something they might regret later? That's true of absolutely anyone, but that doesn't mean we should send untold numbers of people to prison. What, you think adults are somehow perfect? We're not. Most adults are nothing more than overgrown children.