2. then there are absolutely clueless types who say stupid things out of complete ignorance of how to relate to or even just talk about the opposite sex
3. and then there are the genuinely warped men with serious pscyhological issues and a serious axe to grind, with mother issues/ previous girlfriend issues/ stalker issues. these have to do with developmental psychology, emotional instability, and genuinely frightening deeper psychological issues like a need for control, and a perception of a threat in women on a psychological level they can't deal with
but all such men are only a tiny minority of men. in public, in the workplace, in the FOSS community. unfortunately, they themselves by their words and actions generate the majority of heat on the subject
the crime of jumping the gun and concluding correlation is causation is bad
the crime of blindly rejecting causation when you see correlation is equally bad
" going through the motions of critical thinking without really understanding it, is a lot better than not doing it at all"
huh? you just contradicted yourself in those words
it's like pavlov's dogs around here (speaking of correlation and causation): people describe a correlation in a story, and immediately begins the steady rain of chanting "correlation is not causation", "correlation is not causation" nitwit comments
its not critical thinking in the least. its a mindless blind meme. its a replacement for critical thinking just as malacious and erroneous as thinking correlation is causation
its like the dense brownie point seeking ass licker in class who sees the smart kid say something in class one day that the teacher rewards, so he decides to raise his hand constantly all the time and ape what the other kid said (only once) at every available opportunity
saying "correlation is not causation" at this point is not a sign of intelligence or critical thinking. it is, in fact, an ironclad sign at this point of lack of intelligence and uncritical thinking. its like a salivating dog at the sound of a bell. its completely mindless
and yes, i consider the imposition on small businesses to be far less important than a firm psychological wall for regular end users when it comes to security and the browser session
you like the current browser implementation of SSL because it is convenient for you... as a developer
you don't happen to think that making your life a pain in the ass as a developer is gee, i dunno, slightly less important than making SSL implementation a serious psychological wall for end users? you don't consider that goal slightly more important than your CONVENIENCE with secure website development? you don't consider your browser use to be slightly more esoteric and exotic than what browsers are used for commonly? do you think maybe your convenience, as a developer for crying out loud, isn't the fucking point?
in fact, turn in your nerd credentials in on your way out, don't let the door hit you in the ass, because emphasizing convenience over security is expected in userland, but your average developer- heck your average SECURE WEBSITE developer, as you profess to be, better be fucking downright hardcore evangelical about security over convenience. as a fundamental component of his profession
i fear for whomever you develop for. when they discover whatever you lazily left unsecured... because i seriously question your priorities and your state of mind and its appropriateness for your presumed profession
as the guy said in the article, it should kick you from a session at expired certs, not allow click through options
if the cert is expired/ unverifiable, the browser should simply kick the session, end of story
that should really be the only option available to anyone. its psychological: take this seriously, sorry for the inconvenience. otherwise, lazy admins will let their expired/ malformed certs hang out there for a lot longer (which i've seen even on a credit card site: capital one), because users just easily circumvent the roadblock. they'll definitely notice if no users can get through, and the angry emails pile in their inbox
i only allow https admin connections to my router, which of course means my browser screams about being unable to verify any certs... since i'm on a subnet. and i bet there are many other valid situations where expired/ unverified certs still represent a valid connection
however, add up all the valid situations where you want to continue an uncertified https connection, and you are left with nothing but a hill of beans in comparison to the mch more massive problem of psychologically just not taking https seriously enough
now you just have to convince the 3/4/5 major browser flavors to implement this new status quo
maybe the certificate authority should simply kick insecure browsers regardless (is that passed to the certificate authority during verification of cert?). that would get browser coders and vendors to notice. of course, what the browser report themselves can be hacked/ finessed, but if that's done maliciously, you're box is already owned, and its already game over regardless through a lot more powerful avenues
by just conveniently ignoring the reality of the subject matter, and inventing a wish-fulfillment fantasy life, and even confuse totally different subject matter, like say, your typical teenage crush and sex with minors
we're not talking about relationships
we're talking about coercion
a child is not psychologically able to handle coercive attempts at forcing sex. this genuinely damages the child by convincing them they deserve to be coerced, that this is normal. we all have standards of behavior, standards of how we treat other people and how we deserve to be treated. if we allow children in situations where a person is allowed to treat them badly, and they have no way to properly understand or incorporate this, they begin to think that's normal. and they continue to be abused, and, most importantly: they become abusers themselves
because how you treat others is not limited to these sexual situations. if you teach a child that its ok to coerce someone through power into doing something you want them to do, this colors their entire perception of life in general. why shouldn't they pull a knife on someone when you want their wallet? different situation, but same use of force over someone else. its the same power situation as polanski, and it IS important that the polanski situation involves a child because a child is still developing an idea of what those standards of behavior are. an adult, meanwhile, understands those standards of behavior. a child DOES NOT, moron
a child does not know what the standards of behavior are in intimate situations. teach them coercion and force is ok, and you have a person who now has years to go to unlearn the bad situations they were exposed to. absolutely: it destroys you, it causes psychological harm, maybe permanently, if you are a child. why don't you understand this simple concept?
maybe you can understand an analogy:
there are people who can hold their breath underwater for 7, 8 minutes, or more. they train themselves with gradual immersion, they build their lung capacity, they build their red blood cell count. now you throw the average person in a car underwater for 7 minutes, without any training, you have a dead person. the issue is not arresting development. the issue is preventing experience from outpacing the psychological ability to incorporate it. otherwise, it destroys you
do you understand the analogy?
i will assume you are 25 for arguments sake. a con man could come up to you on the street and attempt a con on you today that you will now brush off. i will also with certainty say that there are many cons a con man could not make you fall for even at the age of 12. but i say with equal certainty that there exists a set of cons that the 12 year old you would fall for that the 25 year old you does not. cons involving psychological trickery, sudden force, trust building, etc. THESE are the hallmarks of a child and adult sexual relationship. not your fucking cotton candy wish fulfillment fantasy life of psychological equals. you are seriously fucking delusional if you think this is the way an adult and a child can interrelate in the bedroom
if you understand the truth of that, maybe you can begin to see where you have strayed on this basic idea about psychological maturity and damage. these are real genuine serious concepts, and you dismiss them and replace them with a fantasy sequence you totally invented about adult-child sex that doesn't fucking resemble anything about reality
you are forgetting your own younger self. according to you, you splashed on to age 12 as someone as mature as a 34 year old. you're a moron, and you're delusional
that you actually think the process of dealing with a crime is worse than the actual crime is a statement of such colossal stupidity that i hope for your sake i am just falling for an elaborate troll here. for if you honestly believe what you wrote then that makes you a certifiable low iq asshole
you are consenting to me kicking you in the face with a steel tip boot
there: if you reply to me, i have every right to kick you in the face without consequence, because you replying to me CLEARLY is binding legal unambiguous consent that you wish to be kicked in the face, it absolves me of any crime
but even if i kick you in the face, that is nowhere near the real crime. no, the real crime is the horrible patronizing people expressing sympathy for your wounds and calling you a "victim". this is horrible psychological damage nowhere near the damage of being kicked in the face. and even worse, that anyone would have the arrogance of putting me in jail for "assault." assault!? you clearly consented to being kicked in the face when you replied to me
you're such a fucking moron you probably think i'm being serious
the law has to exist as a sledgehammer with false negatives (still better than no law at all) because we don't have the resources to bring in child psychologists every time a teenager considers having sex. or that the teenager is even going to be interested in being involved in this bizarre imposition of government bureaucracy on a fleeting personal situation. this is not some arbitrary limitation of my invention that i'm trying to impose on you, i'm asking you to consider the fact that the law is limited by hard truths about reality, and so it must stay as a crude instrument because you simply cannot refine it any further in the situations you are talking about. i'm asking you to accept the ugly truth that our laws sometimes create suffering by being so rough, but they can't be refined any further due to simple limitations of reality, and no law at all creates yet more suffering. you have to accept some things about life that are ugly, but unavoidable
if you can inform me how to create an unerring giant sexual maturity evaluating bureaucracy, and how to somehow inject it into fleeting, quixotic, deeply private moments in a teenagers life, then i will concede the law can be made more refined. until then, you have to try to accept what i am asking you to accept. and also accept that most judges and prosecutors are not completely evil morons (although some are) and they try to be compassionate. the law is not a computer program. it is interpreted by human beings. and this helps immensely (it also hurts in some ways to, since us human beings are certainly at least as imperfect as our legal system if not more)
your attempt to rationalize the concept away is retarded, at best
a child who consents does not yet have the faculties to know what they are fucking consenting to PSYCHOLOGICALLY. do you fucking understand the simple concept? you really think you can argue away the simple logical concept of informed consent?
the situation with the 3 year old is an ANALOGY. do you know what an "analogy" is? how much intellectual charity do you fucking need here anyway? here, follow the bouncing ball and see if you can engage in this radical thing called "abstract reasoning." do you know what that concept means?
1. i ask a three year old if he wants to watch the horror movie hostel 2. the 3 year old says yes 3. i am now innocent of any wrongdoing if i show him the movie because the 3 year old said yes
now i will hold your hand most condescendingly moron, and ask you if you see the problem there. and maybe it will give you some idea why your mental diarrhea above about a minor and sex with an adult is pure fucking fail
a child is not psychologically able to handle coercive attempts at forcing sex. this genuinely damages the child by convincing them they deserve to be coerced, that this is normal. we all have standards of behavior, standards of how we treat other people and how we deserve to be treated. if we allow children in situations where a person is allowed to treat them badly, and they have no way to properly understand or incorporate this, they begin to think that's normal. and they continue to be abused, and, most importantly: they become abusers themselves
because how you treat others is not limited to these sexual situations. if you teach a child that its ok to coerce someone through power into doing something you want them to do, why shuoldn't they pull a knife on someone when you want their wallet? different situation, but same use of force over someone else. its the same power situation as polanski, and it IS important that the polanski situation involves a child because a child is still developing an idea of what those standards of behavior are. an adult, meanwhile, understands those standards of behavior: they are more mature
"I don't think that psychological ability is developed until the experiences happen.... and... destroys you? Please."
yes, a child does not know what the standards of behavior are in intimate situations. teach them coercion and force is ok, and you have a person who now has years to go to unlearn the bad situations they were exposed to. absolutely: it destroys you, it causes psychological harm, maybe permanently, if you are a child. why don't you understand this simple concept?
"Psychological pain sucks. However, you don't build a tolerance for pain by avoiding it."
maybe you can understand an analogy:
there are people who can hold their breath underwater for 7, 8 minutes, or more. they train themselves with gradual immersion, they build their lung capacity, they build their red blood cell count. now you throw the average person in a car underwater for 7 minutes, without any training, you have a dead person. so just as i said before, i'll repeat to you so you finally understand: "the issue is not arresting development. the issue is preventing experience to outpace the psychological ability to incorporate it. then it destroys you."
do you understand the analogy?
i will assume you are 25 for arguments sake. a con man could come up to you on the street and attempt a con on you today that you will now brush off. i will also with certainty that there are many cons a con man could not make you fall for even at the age of 12... but i say with equal certainty that there exists a set of cons that the 12 year old would fall for that the 25 year old you does not. cons involving psychological trickery, sudden force, trust building, etc. do you deny this?
if you understand the truth of that, maybe you can begin to see where you have strayed on this basic idea about psychological maturity and damage. these are real genuine serious concepts, and you dismiss them. you are forgetting your younger self
where they now have roving bands of religious police in jeeps who enforce compulsory mosque attendance, headscarf wearing, etc. plenty there also think, for example, surgical severing of some thieves hands is a good deterrent (against gainful employment and for social ostracism maybe). that adulterers and prostitutes should be stoned
these are all medieval abominations, and its a negative backwards development in parts of the muslim world like indonesia and malaysia and its an affront to basic human rights and human dignity and muslims must reverse these backslidings in their societies towards barbarity
"What is mentally damaging is telling someone they're still a dumb kid, they don't know anything, and they were abused (OMG, really? like they can't decide whether or not they were, and they're too dumb to figure it out) by this old pervert (who they thought cared about them, and who they cared about too). No, since they're just a kid, they're too dumb to even figure out that this person is a perverted creep and they were abused."
you're describing patronization and condescension as the real crime, as a worse crime than child rape
people are often overempathetic without understanding shit. so if my neighbor gets hit by a drunk driver, and i go over and i whine and make googoo eyes and give big hugs and talk about the evil drunk driver to his parents, most people are going to think "shut the fuck up and leave me alone so i can deal with this on my own terms". but according to you, me, the touchy feely neighbor and my inappropriate intrusions is somehow worse than what the drunk driver did. wtf? you have no fucking sense of proportion or context or scale. to you, al qaeda flying airplanes into office towers isn't a crime... because gw bush is an asshole. that's exactly the same thing when you consider patronizing and condescending adults to be real crime, not the child rape. hey, how about this einstein: patronizing condescending creepy adults are a problem, AND a child rapist is a problem (obviously a lot worse). how does that radical concept strike you? pffffft
i don't even no where to begin with the rest of your drivel
look, here's an analogy: would you show a 3 year old the horror movie hostel? why not? well, when he turns 7, he magically is able to handle it? no, maybe its 8. who fucking cares what arbitrary number society picks: laws are messy and complex and sit in gray areas, but the truth is NO law is way worse than an imperfect law. you understand that at least, right? so when can a kid handle the movie hostel? 7? 8? 9? who fucking knows, but her's a truth you can't deny: its certain a 3 year old fucking can't handle it! right? so where do you draw the line? 15? 12? 21? 18 doesn't cut it for you? fine. but you agree a 13 year old is too fuckign young for informed consent, right? who fucking cares that laws are imperfect and paint over gray areas: NO law is far worse!
if you understand that analogy, maybe you can begin to understand how fucking stupid the res tof your drivel is
1. "As I said, I do not believe, based on my own experiences, that Age = maturity. In fact, I think that these restrictions do nothing but delay maturity since the experiences that they try to prevent are actually the sorts of things that help a person mature"
the issue is not arresting development. the issue is preventing experience to outpace the psychological ability to incorporate it. then it destroys you. would you show a gory horror movie to a 3 year old? well what age is appropriate? you can probably even find some 3 years olds that could handle it. none of that is the point. the point is: gradual immersion into experience to promote maturity. for example: sex between similar aged, similarly mature teenagers is fine. or: discussion of why the bird on the ground isn't moving is appropriate for a 3 year old. all of these are rough guidelines. they can be extended. but you have to admit the extremes are real, and the extremes are dangerous: a 13 year old in a gangbang, a 3 year old watching "hostel".
2. "Frankly, I think people who see sex as something negative that people have to be protected from as THE PROBLEM."
absolutely. sex is 100% natural and normal. sex is never the issue: coercion and abuse of power is the problem
if i make a movie, i deserve to sell tickets in a CINEMA
if I PUT IT ON THE WEB, i deserve to have free advertising for my supposed skills as a moviemaker, and entice some to go to the cinema to buy a ticket
if i put a program on the web, i deserve to get a job to customize that program for a corporation's specific needs, make my resume look awesome, and become influential in my field. all of which translates into dollars in my pocket far better than setting up arbitrary, easily broken tollbooths between digital content and internet users, who expect, and deserve, unfettered access
"Look, whether or not it should be legal for teens to have sex with adults, even you should see that it should be legal for them to have sex with each other, I'd think."
i agree 100%: sexual experimentation among teenage peers of roughly equal psychological maturity is the road to psychological maturity. duh. where did i say otherwise?
that's a totally different subject matter than what we are talking about, so i don't know what your point is
some say life begins at conception, and to destroy an embryo is equal to murder
some say infanticide is morally acceptable, that a baby doesn't have a conscience yet
of course, the truth is somewhere between these extremes. where exactly? i don't know. its a gray area. society tries to make a good guess: the first and second trimester ok, the third not ok, for example, and of course, some people are still upset. some people are always upset. and the standard and the law between "murder" and "disposing of a fetus" will shift over time as opinion changes over time
this is reality, this is the truth, its messy and complicated, and this is the way it will always be
the rigid people, the unthinking partisans, are the ones who have a number in their head (15 instead of 18... why not 12? why not 21?), and won't budge
"YOU are the one who is rigid in your thinking. You don't seem to understand that these arbitrary laws cause more harm than the supposed-creeps running around. The laws ARE the problem. If they were set at a more realistic level (15 instead of 18) then that boyfriend/girlfriend would not have spent a night in jail simply for photographing themselves."
"YOU are the one who is rigid in your thinking. You don't seem to understand that these arbitrary laws cause more harm than the supposed-fundamentalists running around. The laws ARE the problem. If they were set at a more realistic level (2 months instead of 5 months) then that pregnant mother would not have committed a sin by killing an innocent human being."
"YOU are the one who is rigid in your thinking. You don't seem to understand that these arbitrary laws cause more harm than the supposed-drunk drivers running around. The laws ARE the problem. If they were set at a more realistic level (18 instead of 21) then that drinking college student would not have spent a night in jail simply for having a good time."
etc., etc., ad nauseum
zzz. drama as old as time. i will choose true wisdom by saying you have to pick a dividing line somewhere, and its arbitrary to some extent, but that's real life: messy and grey, and you can't satisfy all the screaming twits like yourself who don't admit its complicated and grey. some decade it will younger. some decade it will older. you make your best guess, and make that the law, AND MOST IMPORTANT: you recognize that having NO law at all IS FAR MORE UNJUST THAN AN IMPERFECT ONE
really, that is the truth right there: an imperfect law is much better than no law
and besides moron, you don't think prosecutors and judges have leeway and understand where the law is imperfect and they should err on the side of compassion? sure, some judges and prosecutors and judges are assholes and have no compassion and will treat a 19 year old sleeping with a 17 year old the same as a 41 year old sleeping with an 11 year old. so would that be your new retarded reason now to have no laws: sometimes people in charge are assholes? please, give it up, grow up loser and understand life is more complicated and gray than your RIGID thinking portrays it
i can get drunk, and drive home. a lot of times, i'll probably make it home and not damage myself, my car, or anyone else
"See, I don't doubt that a lot, even most, such relationships are not built upon true consent, but acting as if this could not happen and making one involved party look like hellspawn surely is not the way to deal with a problem in this day and age."
the issue is law, legality. not accommodating the hypothetical and unlikely
we make driving while drunk illegal, simply because of the great risk and jeopardy you are engaging in
certainly, the hypothetical good outcome situations you describe above exist. but, as you admit, consent is not the norm (nevermind INFORMED consent: as in the ability to properly psychologically understand the full psychological ramifications of the situation)
as such, much like the drunk driver, you are engaging in behavior which is just too dangerous to the minor's psychological well-being, and the situation must be made illegal, and must be punished. even if you have good intentions and are very careful, you can damage the minor in ways you don't even anticipate, control, or understand. just like the drunk driver who made it almost all the way home without damaging anything before being caught still deserves to be punished
it is the willful disregard of the risk and dangers to the minor's psychological well-being you are engaging in that is the problem. it is a transgression of human conscience, and it deserves to be punished. and you need to recognize what kind of fire you are playing with, and how your hypothetical situations you describe are wish fulfillment fantasies, and nowhere near the reality of the vast majority of such situations
and EVEN if you were a person who could make such fantastical scenarios happen, how do we tell the difference between you and the average asshole predator? we can't, and so we don't. because it is not incumbent upon society to bend over backwards to accomodate your rare and special gifts at initiating a good special sexual experience with an underage person. it is incumbent upon YOU to recognize society has a duty to protect its minors from predators, and there's simply no way to tell the difference between you and the predator
does that seem unfair to you? hey, i'm going to die someday, i think that's unfair. life has plenty of ugly truths you need to accept rather than fight. here, the truth you need to accept is that your wish-fulfillment scenarios are rare and mostly fantasy, and the vast overwhelming realities of the situations of sex with minors is a brutal transgression and THAT is the basis society must act on when formulating its laws. you need to deal with that
i was talking about an adult having sex with a 13 year old, clearly, that's what i was talking about
you are talking about minors, both minors, exchanging nude photos. this shouldn't be punished at all
nor should a 19 year old be punished for having sex with a 17 year old, another form of lunatic overly rigid thinking
but please dude, i see it in internet discussions all the time: don't listen to what someone says or writes and try to apply what they are saying as broadly as possible in order to find something offensive in what they say. then you are just looking to be offended for some weird psychological reason, rather than actually try to communicate with and understand people
what i said doesn't even begin to remotely apply to the horrible situation you describe
"Anything leaked is leaked deliberately with a concrete reasoning behind it."
sometimes, mistakes just happen. but some people have to see secret plots and cabals around every turn. you sound dangerously close to this unfortunate psychological state. secret plots exist, yes. but they are rare and few between, and they usually get revealed. most leaks are just that: oops, i screwed up
Bob Quick, Britain's most senior counterterrorism officer, was forced to stand down today after an embarrassing security leak resulted in a major anti-terror operation, designed to foil an alleged al-Qaida plot to bomb Britain, being rushed forward.
The London mayor and chairman of the Metropolitan Police Authority, Boris Johnson, announced the resignation this morning, saying it had been accepted with "great reluctance and sadness".
Assistant Commissioner John Yates, the high-profile Met officer who headed the 19-month "cash for peerages" inquiry, will replace Quick as the head of counterterrorism, Johnson said.
Police were forced to carry out raids on addresses in the north-west of England in broad daylight yesterday, earlier than planned, after Quick, the Metropolitan police's assistant commissioner, was photographed carrying sensitive documents as he arrived for a meeting in Downing Street.
A white document marked "secret", which carried details of the operation being planned by MI5 and several police forces, was clearly visible to press photographers equipped with telephoto lenses.
just because some archaic society or some historical society did something brutal, is no justification or rationalization for accepting something brutal still going on today. they still do cliterectomies in west africa. and? this is simply wrong, by any logical and lucid attempt to abide by the concepts of human dignity and a human conscience. we live in an advanced modern society, we make progress. pointing to something more brutal and going "see? somebody else is being brutal, so it should be ok for us to do it to": does that really strike you as a valid reasoning process?
there's a story about some lady who beat her 2 year old to death in the local paper here today. since that lady beat her kid to death, it should be ok for me to beat my kid to death. wtf? does that make any sense to you? well, pointing out brutal things that they did in historical times as validation of doing brutal things today is the same sort of logical fail on your part. and engaging in marriage/ sex at physical maturity with minors, rather than psychological maturity, is obviously a historical brutality you should simply condemn, not rationalize
Slashdot Mirror
$189.35 of which were sympathy clicks by her boyfriend
and do her blue pubes stand up at ridiculous heights in a mock phallus?
2. then there are absolutely clueless types who say stupid things out of complete ignorance of how to relate to or even just talk about the opposite sex
3. and then there are the genuinely warped men with serious pscyhological issues and a serious axe to grind, with mother issues/ previous girlfriend issues/ stalker issues. these have to do with developmental psychology, emotional instability, and genuinely frightening deeper psychological issues like a need for control, and a perception of a threat in women on a psychological level they can't deal with
but all such men are only a tiny minority of men. in public, in the workplace, in the FOSS community. unfortunately, they themselves by their words and actions generate the majority of heat on the subject
the crime of jumping the gun and concluding correlation is causation is bad
the crime of blindly rejecting causation when you see correlation is equally bad
" going through the motions of critical thinking without really understanding it, is a lot better than not doing it at all"
huh? you just contradicted yourself in those words
it's like pavlov's dogs around here (speaking of correlation and causation): people describe a correlation in a story, and immediately begins the steady rain of chanting "correlation is not causation", "correlation is not causation" nitwit comments
its not critical thinking in the least. its a mindless blind meme. its a replacement for critical thinking just as malacious and erroneous as thinking correlation is causation
its like the dense brownie point seeking ass licker in class who sees the smart kid say something in class one day that the teacher rewards, so he decides to raise his hand constantly all the time and ape what the other kid said (only once) at every available opportunity
saying "correlation is not causation" at this point is not a sign of intelligence or critical thinking. it is, in fact, an ironclad sign at this point of lack of intelligence and uncritical thinking. its like a salivating dog at the sound of a bell. its completely mindless
photoshopped picture the goatse guy with robot spiders crawling out of his arse
you're pretty funny ;-)
and yes, i consider the imposition on small businesses to be far less important than a firm psychological wall for regular end users when it comes to security and the browser session
and no, i don't work for a certificate authority
you like the current browser implementation of SSL because it is convenient for you... as a developer
you don't happen to think that making your life a pain in the ass as a developer is gee, i dunno, slightly less important than making SSL implementation a serious psychological wall for end users? you don't consider that goal slightly more important than your CONVENIENCE with secure website development? you don't consider your browser use to be slightly more esoteric and exotic than what browsers are used for commonly? do you think maybe your convenience, as a developer for crying out loud, isn't the fucking point?
in fact, turn in your nerd credentials in on your way out, don't let the door hit you in the ass, because emphasizing convenience over security is expected in userland, but your average developer- heck your average SECURE WEBSITE developer, as you profess to be, better be fucking downright hardcore evangelical about security over convenience. as a fundamental component of his profession
i fear for whomever you develop for. when they discover whatever you lazily left unsecured... because i seriously question your priorities and your state of mind and its appropriateness for your presumed profession
as the guy said in the article, it should kick you from a session at expired certs, not allow click through options
if the cert is expired/ unverifiable, the browser should simply kick the session, end of story
that should really be the only option available to anyone. its psychological: take this seriously, sorry for the inconvenience. otherwise, lazy admins will let their expired/ malformed certs hang out there for a lot longer (which i've seen even on a credit card site: capital one), because users just easily circumvent the roadblock. they'll definitely notice if no users can get through, and the angry emails pile in their inbox
i only allow https admin connections to my router, which of course means my browser screams about being unable to verify any certs... since i'm on a subnet. and i bet there are many other valid situations where expired/ unverified certs still represent a valid connection
however, add up all the valid situations where you want to continue an uncertified https connection, and you are left with nothing but a hill of beans in comparison to the mch more massive problem of psychologically just not taking https seriously enough
now you just have to convince the 3/4/5 major browser flavors to implement this new status quo
maybe the certificate authority should simply kick insecure browsers regardless (is that passed to the certificate authority during verification of cert?). that would get browser coders and vendors to notice. of course, what the browser report themselves can be hacked/ finessed, but if that's done maliciously, you're box is already owned, and its already game over regardless through a lot more powerful avenues
by just conveniently ignoring the reality of the subject matter, and inventing a wish-fulfillment fantasy life, and even confuse totally different subject matter, like say, your typical teenage crush and sex with minors
we're not talking about relationships
we're talking about coercion
a child is not psychologically able to handle coercive attempts at forcing sex. this genuinely damages the child by convincing them they deserve to be coerced, that this is normal. we all have standards of behavior, standards of how we treat other people and how we deserve to be treated. if we allow children in situations where a person is allowed to treat them badly, and they have no way to properly understand or incorporate this, they begin to think that's normal. and they continue to be abused, and, most importantly: they become abusers themselves
because how you treat others is not limited to these sexual situations. if you teach a child that its ok to coerce someone through power into doing something you want them to do, this colors their entire perception of life in general. why shouldn't they pull a knife on someone when you want their wallet? different situation, but same use of force over someone else. its the same power situation as polanski, and it IS important that the polanski situation involves a child because a child is still developing an idea of what those standards of behavior are. an adult, meanwhile, understands those standards of behavior. a child DOES NOT, moron
a child does not know what the standards of behavior are in intimate situations. teach them coercion and force is ok, and you have a person who now has years to go to unlearn the bad situations they were exposed to. absolutely: it destroys you, it causes psychological harm, maybe permanently, if you are a child. why don't you understand this simple concept?
maybe you can understand an analogy:
there are people who can hold their breath underwater for 7, 8 minutes, or more. they train themselves with gradual immersion, they build their lung capacity, they build their red blood cell count. now you throw the average person in a car underwater for 7 minutes, without any training, you have a dead person. the issue is not arresting development. the issue is preventing experience from outpacing the psychological ability to incorporate it. otherwise, it destroys you
do you understand the analogy?
i will assume you are 25 for arguments sake. a con man could come up to you on the street and attempt a con on you today that you will now brush off. i will also with certainty say that there are many cons a con man could not make you fall for even at the age of 12. but i say with equal certainty that there exists a set of cons that the 12 year old you would fall for that the 25 year old you does not. cons involving psychological trickery, sudden force, trust building, etc. THESE are the hallmarks of a child and adult sexual relationship. not your fucking cotton candy wish fulfillment fantasy life of psychological equals. you are seriously fucking delusional if you think this is the way an adult and a child can interrelate in the bedroom
if you understand the truth of that, maybe you can begin to see where you have strayed on this basic idea about psychological maturity and damage. these are real genuine serious concepts, and you dismiss them and replace them with a fantasy sequence you totally invented about adult-child sex that doesn't fucking resemble anything about reality
you are forgetting your own younger self. according to you, you splashed on to age 12 as someone as mature as a 34 year old. you're a moron, and you're delusional
that you actually think the process of dealing with a crime is worse than the actual crime is a statement of such colossal stupidity that i hope for your sake i am just falling for an elaborate troll here. for if you honestly believe what you wrote then that makes you a certifiable low iq asshole
you are consenting to me kicking you in the face with a steel tip boot
there: if you reply to me, i have every right to kick you in the face without consequence, because you replying to me CLEARLY is binding legal unambiguous consent that you wish to be kicked in the face, it absolves me of any crime
but even if i kick you in the face, that is nowhere near the real crime. no, the real crime is the horrible patronizing people expressing sympathy for your wounds and calling you a "victim". this is horrible psychological damage nowhere near the damage of being kicked in the face. and even worse, that anyone would have the arrogance of putting me in jail for "assault." assault!? you clearly consented to being kicked in the face when you replied to me
you're such a fucking moron you probably think i'm being serious
the law has to exist as a sledgehammer with false negatives (still better than no law at all) because we don't have the resources to bring in child psychologists every time a teenager considers having sex. or that the teenager is even going to be interested in being involved in this bizarre imposition of government bureaucracy on a fleeting personal situation. this is not some arbitrary limitation of my invention that i'm trying to impose on you, i'm asking you to consider the fact that the law is limited by hard truths about reality, and so it must stay as a crude instrument because you simply cannot refine it any further in the situations you are talking about. i'm asking you to accept the ugly truth that our laws sometimes create suffering by being so rough, but they can't be refined any further due to simple limitations of reality, and no law at all creates yet more suffering. you have to accept some things about life that are ugly, but unavoidable
if you can inform me how to create an unerring giant sexual maturity evaluating bureaucracy, and how to somehow inject it into fleeting, quixotic, deeply private moments in a teenagers life, then i will concede the law can be made more refined. until then, you have to try to accept what i am asking you to accept. and also accept that most judges and prosecutors are not completely evil morons (although some are) and they try to be compassionate. the law is not a computer program. it is interpreted by human beings. and this helps immensely (it also hurts in some ways to, since us human beings are certainly at least as imperfect as our legal system if not more)
what the fuck does that mean to you?
your attempt to rationalize the concept away is retarded, at best
a child who consents does not yet have the faculties to know what they are fucking consenting to PSYCHOLOGICALLY. do you fucking understand the simple concept? you really think you can argue away the simple logical concept of informed consent?
the situation with the 3 year old is an ANALOGY. do you know what an "analogy" is? how much intellectual charity do you fucking need here anyway? here, follow the bouncing ball and see if you can engage in this radical thing called "abstract reasoning." do you know what that concept means?
1. i ask a three year old if he wants to watch the horror movie hostel
2. the 3 year old says yes
3. i am now innocent of any wrongdoing if i show him the movie because the 3 year old said yes
now i will hold your hand most condescendingly moron, and ask you if you see the problem there. and maybe it will give you some idea why your mental diarrhea above about a minor and sex with an adult is pure fucking fail
INFORMED CONSENT
learn the concept dimwit
your nephew's father? your sister?
dude, you have issues. and judging by your hesitant threat in a followup comment to kill someone, you're obviously still working through these issues
good luck on your psychological journey, wherever it may lead
we're not talking about relationships
we're talking about coercion
a child is not psychologically able to handle coercive attempts at forcing sex. this genuinely damages the child by convincing them they deserve to be coerced, that this is normal. we all have standards of behavior, standards of how we treat other people and how we deserve to be treated. if we allow children in situations where a person is allowed to treat them badly, and they have no way to properly understand or incorporate this, they begin to think that's normal. and they continue to be abused, and, most importantly: they become abusers themselves
because how you treat others is not limited to these sexual situations. if you teach a child that its ok to coerce someone through power into doing something you want them to do, why shuoldn't they pull a knife on someone when you want their wallet? different situation, but same use of force over someone else. its the same power situation as polanski, and it IS important that the polanski situation involves a child because a child is still developing an idea of what those standards of behavior are. an adult, meanwhile, understands those standards of behavior: they are more mature
"I don't think that psychological ability is developed until the experiences happen.... and... destroys you? Please."
yes, a child does not know what the standards of behavior are in intimate situations. teach them coercion and force is ok, and you have a person who now has years to go to unlearn the bad situations they were exposed to. absolutely: it destroys you, it causes psychological harm, maybe permanently, if you are a child. why don't you understand this simple concept?
"Psychological pain sucks. However, you don't build a tolerance for pain by avoiding it."
maybe you can understand an analogy:
there are people who can hold their breath underwater for 7, 8 minutes, or more. they train themselves with gradual immersion, they build their lung capacity, they build their red blood cell count. now you throw the average person in a car underwater for 7 minutes, without any training, you have a dead person. so just as i said before, i'll repeat to you so you finally understand: "the issue is not arresting development. the issue is preventing experience to outpace the psychological ability to incorporate it. then it destroys you."
do you understand the analogy?
i will assume you are 25 for arguments sake. a con man could come up to you on the street and attempt a con on you today that you will now brush off. i will also with certainty that there are many cons a con man could not make you fall for even at the age of 12... but i say with equal certainty that there exists a set of cons that the 12 year old would fall for that the 25 year old you does not. cons involving psychological trickery, sudden force, trust building, etc. do you deny this?
if you understand the truth of that, maybe you can begin to see where you have strayed on this basic idea about psychological maturity and damage. these are real genuine serious concepts, and you dismiss them. you are forgetting your younger self
where they now have roving bands of religious police in jeeps who enforce compulsory mosque attendance, headscarf wearing, etc. plenty there also think, for example, surgical severing of some thieves hands is a good deterrent (against gainful employment and for social ostracism maybe). that adulterers and prostitutes should be stoned
these are all medieval abominations, and its a negative backwards development in parts of the muslim world like indonesia and malaysia and its an affront to basic human rights and human dignity and muslims must reverse these backslidings in their societies towards barbarity
"What is mentally damaging is telling someone they're still a dumb kid, they don't know anything, and they were abused (OMG, really? like they can't decide whether or not they were, and they're too dumb to figure it out) by this old pervert (who they thought cared about them, and who they cared about too). No, since they're just a kid, they're too dumb to even figure out that this person is a perverted creep and they were abused."
you're describing patronization and condescension as the real crime, as a worse crime than child rape
people are often overempathetic without understanding shit. so if my neighbor gets hit by a drunk driver, and i go over and i whine and make googoo eyes and give big hugs and talk about the evil drunk driver to his parents, most people are going to think "shut the fuck up and leave me alone so i can deal with this on my own terms". but according to you, me, the touchy feely neighbor and my inappropriate intrusions is somehow worse than what the drunk driver did. wtf? you have no fucking sense of proportion or context or scale. to you, al qaeda flying airplanes into office towers isn't a crime... because gw bush is an asshole. that's exactly the same thing when you consider patronizing and condescending adults to be real crime, not the child rape. hey, how about this einstein: patronizing condescending creepy adults are a problem, AND a child rapist is a problem (obviously a lot worse). how does that radical concept strike you? pffffft
i don't even no where to begin with the rest of your drivel
look, here's an analogy: would you show a 3 year old the horror movie hostel? why not? well, when he turns 7, he magically is able to handle it? no, maybe its 8. who fucking cares what arbitrary number society picks: laws are messy and complex and sit in gray areas, but the truth is NO law is way worse than an imperfect law. you understand that at least, right? so when can a kid handle the movie hostel? 7? 8? 9? who fucking knows, but her's a truth you can't deny: its certain a 3 year old fucking can't handle it! right? so where do you draw the line? 15? 12? 21? 18 doesn't cut it for you? fine. but you agree a 13 year old is too fuckign young for informed consent, right? who fucking cares that laws are imperfect and paint over gray areas: NO law is far worse!
if you understand that analogy, maybe you can begin to understand how fucking stupid the res tof your drivel is
1. "As I said, I do not believe, based on my own experiences, that Age = maturity. In fact, I think that these restrictions do nothing but delay maturity since the experiences that they try to prevent are actually the sorts of things that help a person mature"
the issue is not arresting development. the issue is preventing experience to outpace the psychological ability to incorporate it. then it destroys you. would you show a gory horror movie to a 3 year old? well what age is appropriate? you can probably even find some 3 years olds that could handle it. none of that is the point. the point is: gradual immersion into experience to promote maturity. for example: sex between similar aged, similarly mature teenagers is fine. or: discussion of why the bird on the ground isn't moving is appropriate for a 3 year old. all of these are rough guidelines. they can be extended. but you have to admit the extremes are real, and the extremes are dangerous: a 13 year old in a gangbang, a 3 year old watching "hostel".
2. "Frankly, I think people who see sex as something negative that people have to be protected from as THE PROBLEM."
absolutely. sex is 100% natural and normal. sex is never the issue: coercion and abuse of power is the problem
if i build a fence, i deserve to get paid
if i make a movie, i deserve to sell tickets in a CINEMA
if I PUT IT ON THE WEB, i deserve to have free advertising for my supposed skills as a moviemaker, and entice some to go to the cinema to buy a ticket
if i put a program on the web, i deserve to get a job to customize that program for a corporation's specific needs, make my resume look awesome, and become influential in my field. all of which translates into dollars in my pocket far better than setting up arbitrary, easily broken tollbooths between digital content and internet users, who expect, and deserve, unfettered access
"Look, whether or not it should be legal for teens to have sex with adults, even you should see that it should be legal for them to have sex with each other, I'd think."
i agree 100%: sexual experimentation among teenage peers of roughly equal psychological maturity is the road to psychological maturity. duh. where did i say otherwise?
that's a totally different subject matter than what we are talking about, so i don't know what your point is
some say life begins at conception, and to destroy an embryo is equal to murder
some say infanticide is morally acceptable, that a baby doesn't have a conscience yet
of course, the truth is somewhere between these extremes. where exactly? i don't know. its a gray area. society tries to make a good guess: the first and second trimester ok, the third not ok, for example, and of course, some people are still upset. some people are always upset. and the standard and the law between "murder" and "disposing of a fetus" will shift over time as opinion changes over time
this is reality, this is the truth, its messy and complicated, and this is the way it will always be
the rigid people, the unthinking partisans, are the ones who have a number in their head (15 instead of 18... why not 12? why not 21?), and won't budge
"YOU are the one who is rigid in your thinking. You don't seem to understand that these arbitrary laws cause more harm than the supposed-creeps running around. The laws ARE the problem. If they were set at a more realistic level (15 instead of 18) then that boyfriend/girlfriend would not have spent a night in jail simply for photographing themselves."
"YOU are the one who is rigid in your thinking. You don't seem to understand that these arbitrary laws cause more harm than the supposed-fundamentalists running around. The laws ARE the problem. If they were set at a more realistic level (2 months instead of 5 months) then that pregnant mother would not have committed a sin by killing an innocent human being."
"YOU are the one who is rigid in your thinking. You don't seem to understand that these arbitrary laws cause more harm than the supposed-drunk drivers running around. The laws ARE the problem. If they were set at a more realistic level (18 instead of 21) then that drinking college student would not have spent a night in jail simply for having a good time."
etc., etc., ad nauseum
zzz. drama as old as time. i will choose true wisdom by saying you have to pick a dividing line somewhere, and its arbitrary to some extent, but that's real life: messy and grey, and you can't satisfy all the screaming twits like yourself who don't admit its complicated and grey. some decade it will younger. some decade it will older. you make your best guess, and make that the law, AND MOST IMPORTANT: you recognize that having NO law at all IS FAR MORE UNJUST THAN AN IMPERFECT ONE
really, that is the truth right there: an imperfect law is much better than no law
and besides moron, you don't think prosecutors and judges have leeway and understand where the law is imperfect and they should err on the side of compassion? sure, some judges and prosecutors and judges are assholes and have no compassion and will treat a 19 year old sleeping with a 17 year old the same as a 41 year old sleeping with an 11 year old. so would that be your new retarded reason now to have no laws: sometimes people in charge are assholes? please, give it up, grow up loser and understand life is more complicated and gray than your RIGID thinking portrays it
i can get drunk, and drive home. a lot of times, i'll probably make it home and not damage myself, my car, or anyone else
"See, I don't doubt that a lot, even most, such relationships are not built upon true consent, but acting as if this could not happen and making one involved party look like hellspawn surely is not the way to deal with a problem in this day and age."
the issue is law, legality. not accommodating the hypothetical and unlikely
we make driving while drunk illegal, simply because of the great risk and jeopardy you are engaging in
certainly, the hypothetical good outcome situations you describe above exist. but, as you admit, consent is not the norm (nevermind INFORMED consent: as in the ability to properly psychologically understand the full psychological ramifications of the situation)
as such, much like the drunk driver, you are engaging in behavior which is just too dangerous to the minor's psychological well-being, and the situation must be made illegal, and must be punished. even if you have good intentions and are very careful, you can damage the minor in ways you don't even anticipate, control, or understand. just like the drunk driver who made it almost all the way home without damaging anything before being caught still deserves to be punished
it is the willful disregard of the risk and dangers to the minor's psychological well-being you are engaging in that is the problem. it is a transgression of human conscience, and it deserves to be punished. and you need to recognize what kind of fire you are playing with, and how your hypothetical situations you describe are wish fulfillment fantasies, and nowhere near the reality of the vast majority of such situations
and EVEN if you were a person who could make such fantastical scenarios happen, how do we tell the difference between you and the average asshole predator? we can't, and so we don't. because it is not incumbent upon society to bend over backwards to accomodate your rare and special gifts at initiating a good special sexual experience with an underage person. it is incumbent upon YOU to recognize society has a duty to protect its minors from predators, and there's simply no way to tell the difference between you and the predator
does that seem unfair to you? hey, i'm going to die someday, i think that's unfair. life has plenty of ugly truths you need to accept rather than fight. here, the truth you need to accept is that your wish-fulfillment scenarios are rare and mostly fantasy, and the vast overwhelming realities of the situations of sex with minors is a brutal transgression and THAT is the basis society must act on when formulating its laws. you need to deal with that
i was talking about an adult having sex with a 13 year old, clearly, that's what i was talking about
you are talking about minors, both minors, exchanging nude photos. this shouldn't be punished at all
nor should a 19 year old be punished for having sex with a 17 year old, another form of lunatic overly rigid thinking
but please dude, i see it in internet discussions all the time: don't listen to what someone says or writes and try to apply what they are saying as broadly as possible in order to find something offensive in what they say. then you are just looking to be offended for some weird psychological reason, rather than actually try to communicate with and understand people
what i said doesn't even begin to remotely apply to the horrible situation you describe
"Anything leaked is leaked deliberately with a concrete reasoning behind it."
sometimes, mistakes just happen. but some people have to see secret plots and cabals around every turn. you sound dangerously close to this unfortunate psychological state. secret plots exist, yes. but they are rare and few between, and they usually get revealed. most leaks are just that: oops, i screwed up
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/09/bob-quick-terror-raids-leak
also considered things like human sacrifice, slavery, absolute monarchy, cannibalism, kiri situ gomen, etc., to also be perfectly valid
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiri_sute_gomen
just because some archaic society or some historical society did something brutal, is no justification or rationalization for accepting something brutal still going on today. they still do cliterectomies in west africa. and? this is simply wrong, by any logical and lucid attempt to abide by the concepts of human dignity and a human conscience. we live in an advanced modern society, we make progress. pointing to something more brutal and going "see? somebody else is being brutal, so it should be ok for us to do it to": does that really strike you as a valid reasoning process?
there's a story about some lady who beat her 2 year old to death in the local paper here today. since that lady beat her kid to death, it should be ok for me to beat my kid to death. wtf? does that make any sense to you? well, pointing out brutal things that they did in historical times as validation of doing brutal things today is the same sort of logical fail on your part. and engaging in marriage/ sex at physical maturity with minors, rather than psychological maturity, is obviously a historical brutality you should simply condemn, not rationalize