I strongly recommend reading the IPCC report and assume for a moment that they are right.
I strongly recommend *you* read the report.. sheesh. It says it right there, no more than a 50mm rise in global sea levels is expected over the next 100 years. I simply can't understand how you don't understand what that means. Go down to the beach sometime, look at how many meters tall the beach is. Go to NYC sometime and look down from the Brooklin bridge. Rising global sea levels are a non-issue.
No-one credible, and I'll repeat that, no-one is saying rising global sea levels are going to have an effect on human populations in the next 100 years. Show me a single credible source that says they will be. You won't find one in the IPCC. Rising global sea levels are an indicator of global warming.. they have nothing to do with the effect climate change will have on human populations.
One thing you forgot: everyone is required to write down their occupation and some other particulars, and the defense and prosecution get this list. I've heard that almost always, jurors with a "science" background are preferentially challenged. They only get so many challenges though.
Sigh.. are you seriously suggesting that rising sea levels are going to be anything more than a minor inconvenience? It's not like the year 2110 is going to tick over the whoop the sea will rise. If it's going to rise any significant amount - and I dare you to show me a reputable study that says it is - then it will do so at millimeters per year. So each year buildings that are at their lowest point will start flooding more.. and ya know what people will do? They'll waterproof the basement. In the worst case they'll have to waterproof the bottom floor of the building and put in an elevated walkway.. and that's assuming no-one builds a levy. In other words, what you're suggesting is that some coastal cities in the 22nd century might have to face the same problems that Amsterdam did in the 17th century.
And even if you use the most optimistic scenario, people have to move by the millions. Cities have to be rebuilt. The life in the oceans will change dramatically because of the higher CO2 levels which leads to a more acid climate in the oceans. I could go on, but it is already explained in the IPCC report.
It doesn't say anything like that.
Even if it did, when will millions of people have to move? Over a 100 year period? Oh no!
I take issue with your analogy. I think the actual situation is more like:
"Hey guys, did you know that there's a big invisible wall that you didn't know about and someday someone is going to run into it?" "You lie, there's no wall." "No really, there's a wall." "Prove it." "I can prove it alright, but until I do I think we should stop driving cars." "What? Stop driving cars? That's madness. Do you know what the effect of that would be?" "Yeah, but the wall..." "There is no wall." "Sure there is." "It's a conspiracy." "You're a wall denier." "No you are." "That doesn't even make sense!" "Wall denier."
"Hey guys, supposing there is a wall, when most likely would we be running into it." "He's a wall denier." "I am not!" "No really, guys..." "Wall denier." ".. guys..." "Wall denier." "WHEN IS THIS WALL GOING TO BECOME A PROBLEM?" "if it existed?" "yes, if it existed, when will it become a problem?" "well, if it existed, it'd be a problem in a few hundred years." "I disagree with that, it does exist - " "does not" "- and it will become a problem in a few hundred years." "so you both agree it's a few hundred years off right?" "we don't agree on anything." "definitely not." "well, if you were to both agree on something it would be that this wall problem is a few hundred years off right?" "if we were to agree?" "yes, if you were to agree on something.." "we wouldn't." "I know, oh how I know, but let's just say.." "I think we could agree that the wall is a few hundred years off, if it exists and if we were to agree, which we don't." "cool, so how bad will it be when we hit the wall?" "what wall?" "THE WALL EXISTS. Wall denier!" "I'm not the wall denier, you are."
Yah! Finally! Some is asking the right question. Here are the wrong questions:
1) Is the climate warming or cooling? 2) Are humans responsible?
Here are the right questions:
3) What's going to happen that's so bad we have to "do something about" now? 4) When is that going to happen?
Maybe you need to answer the first two questions to answer the last two but if no-one is asking the last two then we're likely to run off half-cocked and implement political policy that does more harm than good. (see, for example, cap and trade).
You probably should mention that his lawyer spoke to the UK authorities who said they had no interest in him and, if he turned himself in, they wouldn't know what to do with him.
More importantly, the secret cabal on the ratings board has to accept it.. the government can mandate as many ratings as they like but if the ratings board doesn't ever approve any games under that category then its all academic isn't it?
suckers. Usually there's money mules who transfer the money around.. sometimes they're given the job of buying goods and sending those goods to someone else who sells them, etc, etc. It's all traditional money laundering techniques being done by "work from home" saps.
haha.. yes, you are from the deep south.. Jesus H. Christ man.
"Consent" is exactly the opposite of what you have described. By saying *nothing* a person has withheld consent, do you get that?
But let's go back to your previous statement that there is always evidence of rape.. even with your backwards hill billy definition of consent, a woman who says "no" but otherwise "doesn't fight back" can look forward to what physical evidence to support her accusation of rape? By your own definition she has been raped (a sexual act was performed that she did not consent to), and yet no physical evidence exists with which she can prove it. I believe you described this situation as a "pink elephant" and it seems clear to me (and hopefully to everyone who is reading this) that the reason why you expect there to always be evidence is because you consider consent to be something that a woman gives by default and must "fight back" to regain.
Please, go back to fucking your sister, at least she likes it.
If there was a conversation about the dental habits of pink elephants, it isn't absurd to think that someone would pop in and mention that pink elephants don't exist.
And we would say "fuck off idiot". Are you stupid or what?
In regards to the broader topic, women are not required to "resist" for it to be rape.. were you born in the deep south or something?
I'll cut you a break because it kinda seems like you've never learnt the lesson.. but if you jump into the middle of a conversation, whether you're online or in real life, and you ask a stupid question that is unrelated to the topic, don't be surprised when people tell you to fuck off.
We were talking about the specific case where a woman accuses a man of rape but has no evidence to back it up. You've come in suggesting that there's always evidence. I'm not interested in that conversation, and it demonstrates that you didn't go read the whole thread before replying which is just rude.. and so I'm treating you rudely.
In real life I would say "oh hi, what we're talking about is the situation where there is no evidence, what then?" and if you persisted in arguing that there's always evidence I would say "yes, but what if there isn't?" and if you persisted still I'd look the other person(s) who I was talking to in the eye and make the "let's get away from this guy" signal and wander off. Perhaps some poor sap would be left behind to engage you in a conversation about likely evidence of non-consensual sex, but he'd have our pity.
Now, you're probably thinking of a few times when this has happened to you. I sure hope so.
Sigh. The definition of rape is sexual intercourse without consent, and yes, you can "take back" consent any time you want. What's more, you have to get consent for each and every act. Otherwise you would well be within your rights to have sex with all your former partners. "We dated from 1991 to 1993, that means I get to have sex with her whenever I want!!!"
I think people get confused because "evidence of a struggle" is usually the only physical evidence available to prove rape.
Right, so you want it both ways.. obviously, you can't take accusations without proof serious and maintain the assumption of innocence. You can take all accusations serious, and so you should, right up until it you ask "ok, what proof is there?" but you have to say "I'm sorry" to anyone who fails to provide proof.
While emotionally we all feel that justice hasn't been served by the unreported rape, the alternative is much worse. It's simply a fact that people make false accusations.. if society was to treat accusations without proof as anything more than skepticism and, yes, dismissal, then I think it is clear that we would be much worse off. Just look at the witch hunts for a historic precedent.
I would call it rape if she could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he kept going after she had said stop. That is almost never the case because people tend to prefer to have sex without witnesses - or at least one of the partners does, or they can't find willing witnesses - and I can't imagine any sort of physical evidence that could prove that particular accusation.
And that's the point, I call shenanigans whenever someone makes any accusation that they clearly haven't even bothered to think about how they could prove. If you can't prove it, it didn't happen.. that's the law, you should have come to understand this before you started getting pimples, and yet people still seem to be baffled by it.
Slashdot Mirror
umm.. the sat phones came before cell phones. So doesn't that make it a "traditional sat phone service"?
I strongly recommend reading the IPCC report and assume for a moment that they are right.
I strongly recommend *you* read the report.. sheesh. It says it right there, no more than a 50mm rise in global sea levels is expected over the next 100 years. I simply can't understand how you don't understand what that means. Go down to the beach sometime, look at how many meters tall the beach is. Go to NYC sometime and look down from the Brooklin bridge. Rising global sea levels are a non-issue.
No-one credible, and I'll repeat that, no-one is saying rising global sea levels are going to have an effect on human populations in the next 100 years. Show me a single credible source that says they will be. You won't find one in the IPCC. Rising global sea levels are an indicator of global warming.. they have nothing to do with the effect climate change will have on human populations.
One thing you forgot: everyone is required to write down their occupation and some other particulars, and the defense and prosecution get this list. I've heard that almost always, jurors with a "science" background are preferentially challenged. They only get so many challenges though.
Sigh.. are you seriously suggesting that rising sea levels are going to be anything more than a minor inconvenience? It's not like the year 2110 is going to tick over the whoop the sea will rise. If it's going to rise any significant amount - and I dare you to show me a reputable study that says it is - then it will do so at millimeters per year. So each year buildings that are at their lowest point will start flooding more.. and ya know what people will do? They'll waterproof the basement. In the worst case they'll have to waterproof the bottom floor of the building and put in an elevated walkway.. and that's assuming no-one builds a levy. In other words, what you're suggesting is that some coastal cities in the 22nd century might have to face the same problems that Amsterdam did in the 17th century.
And even if you use the most optimistic scenario, people have to move by the millions. Cities have to be rebuilt. The life in the oceans will change dramatically because of the higher CO2 levels which leads to a more acid climate in the oceans. I could go on, but it is already explained in the IPCC report.
It doesn't say anything like that.
Even if it did, when will millions of people have to move? Over a 100 year period? Oh no!
Oh, a pointless car analogy! I love those!
I take issue with your analogy. I think the actual situation is more like:
"Hey guys, did you know that there's a big invisible wall that you didn't know about and someday someone is going to run into it?"
"You lie, there's no wall."
"No really, there's a wall."
"Prove it."
"I can prove it alright, but until I do I think we should stop driving cars."
"What? Stop driving cars? That's madness. Do you know what the effect of that would be?"
"Yeah, but the wall..."
"There is no wall."
"Sure there is."
"It's a conspiracy."
"You're a wall denier."
"No you are."
"That doesn't even make sense!"
"Wall denier."
"Hey guys, supposing there is a wall, when most likely would we be running into it." ..."
"He's a wall denier."
"I am not!"
"No really, guys..."
"Wall denier."
".. guys
"Wall denier."
"WHEN IS THIS WALL GOING TO BECOME A PROBLEM?"
"if it existed?"
"yes, if it existed, when will it become a problem?"
"well, if it existed, it'd be a problem in a few hundred years."
"I disagree with that, it does exist - "
"does not"
"- and it will become a problem in a few hundred years."
"so you both agree it's a few hundred years off right?"
"we don't agree on anything."
"definitely not."
"well, if you were to both agree on something it would be that this wall problem is a few hundred years off right?"
"if we were to agree?"
"yes, if you were to agree on something.."
"we wouldn't."
"I know, oh how I know, but let's just say.."
"I think we could agree that the wall is a few hundred years off, if it exists and if we were to agree, which we don't."
"cool, so how bad will it be when we hit the wall?"
"what wall?"
"THE WALL EXISTS. Wall denier!"
"I'm not the wall denier, you are."
Yes, actual reputable claims would be better.. citations needed.
Yah! Finally! Some is asking the right question. Here are the wrong questions:
1) Is the climate warming or cooling?
2) Are humans responsible?
Here are the right questions:
3) What's going to happen that's so bad we have to "do something about" now?
4) When is that going to happen?
Maybe you need to answer the first two questions to answer the last two but if no-one is asking the last two then we're likely to run off half-cocked and implement political policy that does more harm than good. (see, for example, cap and trade).
You probably should mention that his lawyer spoke to the UK authorities who said they had no interest in him and, if he turned himself in, they wouldn't know what to do with him.
And, surprise surprise, he hasn't been arrested.
More importantly, the secret cabal on the ratings board has to accept it.. the government can mandate as many ratings as they like but if the ratings board doesn't ever approve any games under that category then its all academic isn't it?
suckers. Usually there's money mules who transfer the money around.. sometimes they're given the job of buying goods and sending those goods to someone else who sells them, etc, etc. It's all traditional money laundering techniques being done by "work from home" saps.
haha.. yes, you are from the deep south.. Jesus H. Christ man.
"Consent" is exactly the opposite of what you have described. By saying *nothing* a person has withheld consent, do you get that?
But let's go back to your previous statement that there is always evidence of rape.. even with your backwards hill billy definition of consent, a woman who says "no" but otherwise "doesn't fight back" can look forward to what physical evidence to support her accusation of rape? By your own definition she has been raped (a sexual act was performed that she did not consent to), and yet no physical evidence exists with which she can prove it. I believe you described this situation as a "pink elephant" and it seems clear to me (and hopefully to everyone who is reading this) that the reason why you expect there to always be evidence is because you consider consent to be something that a woman gives by default and must "fight back" to regain.
Please, go back to fucking your sister, at least she likes it.
They're just the same as twins.. and no-one likes twins, they're all evil.
If there was a conversation about the dental habits of pink elephants, it isn't absurd to think that someone would pop in and mention that pink elephants don't exist.
And we would say "fuck off idiot". Are you stupid or what?
In regards to the broader topic, women are not required to "resist" for it to be rape.. were you born in the deep south or something?
I'll cut you a break because it kinda seems like you've never learnt the lesson.. but if you jump into the middle of a conversation, whether you're online or in real life, and you ask a stupid question that is unrelated to the topic, don't be surprised when people tell you to fuck off.
We were talking about the specific case where a woman accuses a man of rape but has no evidence to back it up. You've come in suggesting that there's always evidence. I'm not interested in that conversation, and it demonstrates that you didn't go read the whole thread before replying which is just rude.. and so I'm treating you rudely.
In real life I would say "oh hi, what we're talking about is the situation where there is no evidence, what then?" and if you persisted in arguing that there's always evidence I would say "yes, but what if there isn't?" and if you persisted still I'd look the other person(s) who I was talking to in the eye and make the "let's get away from this guy" signal and wander off. Perhaps some poor sap would be left behind to engage you in a conversation about likely evidence of non-consensual sex, but he'd have our pity.
Now, you're probably thinking of a few times when this has happened to you. I sure hope so.
I'm saying: read the whole thread ya lazy fuck.
heh, the guy I was talking to answered the question.. you didn't.
only one is accusing the other of a crime.
Sigh. The definition of rape is sexual intercourse without consent, and yes, you can "take back" consent any time you want. What's more, you have to get consent for each and every act. Otherwise you would well be within your rights to have sex with all your former partners. "We dated from 1991 to 1993, that means I get to have sex with her whenever I want!!!"
I think people get confused because "evidence of a struggle" is usually the only physical evidence available to prove rape.
Right, so you want it both ways.. obviously, you can't take accusations without proof serious and maintain the assumption of innocence. You can take all accusations serious, and so you should, right up until it you ask "ok, what proof is there?" but you have to say "I'm sorry" to anyone who fails to provide proof.
The law does not change from rule of kings. You have to do what you want and fight the lawsuit - if it ever comes - and win to change the law.
I think the problem is that you're refusing to say what you expect anyone to do about a rape accusation where there's no proof.
I'm saying doing anything is bad for society.. what are you saying?
While emotionally we all feel that justice hasn't been served by the unreported rape, the alternative is much worse. It's simply a fact that people make false accusations.. if society was to treat accusations without proof as anything more than skepticism and, yes, dismissal, then I think it is clear that we would be much worse off. Just look at the witch hunts for a historic precedent.
I would call it rape if she could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he kept going after she had said stop. That is almost never the case because people tend to prefer to have sex without witnesses - or at least one of the partners does, or they can't find willing witnesses - and I can't imagine any sort of physical evidence that could prove that particular accusation.
And that's the point, I call shenanigans whenever someone makes any accusation that they clearly haven't even bothered to think about how they could prove. If you can't prove it, it didn't happen.. that's the law, you should have come to understand this before you started getting pimples, and yet people still seem to be baffled by it.
Only in countries where the court system has deteriorated so much that "he said she said" is enough to make a rape case.