And we're back to the old issue of duress in contract law. At some point, the pressure reaches the point where the victim will sign the contract or acquiesce to the sexual assault. I know of a case where the rapist threatened a woman's baby, and I've read of a case where the woman was in fear that the man would get violent if refused (I don't know how well-founded the fear was, and don't know that that's entirely relevant here). Women have said "yes" because they feared the consequences of saying "no". Like most aspects of consent, it gets complicated.
As an example, suppose I walk up to a woman in a mostly private place and ask "Want to give me a BJ?" Under normal circumstances, "yes" means yes and "no" means no. If I'm aiming a gun at her head, I'll argue that "yes" doesn't necessarily mean yes, and the woman is likely to comply because of fear. rather than free informed consent.
That sounds an awful lot like saying "Things aren't so bad. Why don't you just cheer up? You can decide that you'll be happy" to a depressive. It's one of the few things that provokes an instant anger response in me, because I've had experience with people telling me that and I know it's complete BS..
Let's see...I wear glasses to compensate for problems with my eyesight. I wear hearing aids to compensate for problems with my hearing. Summer before last, I used a cane to compensate for problems with walking. I use....you're probably happier not knowing about that. I take antidepressants to compensate for what are probably biochemical problems in my brain. I'm using all sorts of technology to compensate for things that don't work right with me. What's wrong with extending that to sexual function?
I'm fine with not RTFAing, but if you RTFS you'd know that the scientists are pointing out that causation could go either way. I find it very plausible that a depressive might immerse himself or herself in social sites.
It's an action against a leftist, and hence not a crime.
Similarly, have you noticed that "law and order" types are all about the order, and are eager to disregard the law when it gets inconvenient, like when it provides rights to the accused?
I really don't care about your concept of assault. This was a deliberate attempt to cause physical harm, and that is normally considered assault. The fact that it's done in a fairly novel way doesn't affect that. The courts have held that free speech doesn't extend to using speech acts to physically harm people. You are not allowed to incite attack on another person, for example, or make credible threats of physical harm.
As far as the detailed questions go, that's really for a court to decide when specific cases come up.
Are all police reports available to the media at all times, or do police departments sometimes withhold them while conducting investigations? I really don't know.
Some bad guys are smart. Some are dumb. Some are mostly smart and make stupid mistakes. It makes sense to investigate and see if there's a dead end somewhere.
If the guy can know when peanuts are around with so slight an exposure, and/or show verifiable consistent reactions, then it's perfectly scientific. Science isn't limited by your imagination.
Saying "kill all men" is perfectly legal in the US. It only becomes illegal when used as incitement. "All men should be killed" is an expression of opinion, one I really don't care about (there's always assholes saying bad things about groups I'm in). "There's a man - kill him like the rest" is a hostile action.
Directly harming someone is not covered under freedom of speech.
Typically, women do not consent to someone grabbing their pussy. A lack of objection is not necessarily consent, particularly in an imbalance of power situation. Women may be afraid to object, or unwilling to cause a scene, or simply taken aback and unable to react before the hand is removed. Written consent isn't required, but "they let you" isn't really evidence of consent.
Yes, and I don't remember the chapter enough offhand to address the methodological problems. It did conclude that the number of women working as prostitutes would go up when demand was high, such as July 4th.
Sex-positive feminism is more of a recent development, yes, although I don't know how much it just wasn't noticed in the days when the media got the most outrageous stuff from people like Andrea Dworkin. Personally, I'd like to see a situation where no woman would feel pressured to be in prostitution or porn production, and no woman would be pressured to stay out of it either.
There's different types of depression. There's situational depression, in which you're depressed because of the crap happening to you. I'm no expert, but my impression is that antidepressants are of very limited, if any, use in treating this. Mine was not situational. Some people asked me what I was depressed about, and the answer was, basically, nothing. That, I believe, is where antidepressants are useful. I'll agree that they are often overprescribed.
I'm also not over my depression, although I keep improving. A few years ago, I felt unhappy, instead of depressed, for the first time in something like fifteen years. I haven't seen that antidepressants in particular cause more problems than they can solve, and my ability to establish meaningful relations is far greater with them than without them. There are other psychiatric medications that have more serious ill effects, but the question is not "Is this person better off healthy or on those meds?" but rather "Is this person better off on these meds or off them?"
There's experimental evidence that depressives perceive the world more realistically than non-depressives. Since my impression is that Trump supporters are looking at him overly optimistically, and listening to what they want to hear, we'd be better off if they were on depressants.
My concern, as I said, is an approach to fundamentalist Christian theocracy, as that looks like the most likely religious danger to the US. By the time we have enough Muslims in the US for it to be even a faint worry, we'll have assimilated enough. The rate of growth in the US is pretty much irrelevant, since it's starting from such a small base. Islam is my least favorite major religion, but I'm not worried about it affecting US government.
It would be more correct to group the Founders as Deists rather than Christians, and they certainly did not set out to make a Christian country. The Christian ones can't really be understood by trying to shoehorn them into modern categories. Their specific views would look much like modern fundamentalism, but their attitude was nothing like modern fundamentalists. They were interested in science, and had no intention of imposing their specific religious views on others, or to define law to incorporate them. The main scientific wedge issue, evolution, was decades in the future.
I'm not sure why you're complaining about Islam incorporating secular law into religion, given that there's a lot of secular law in the early part of the Old Testament. The difference is that most Christians don't feel bound by those laws, except for the few they cherry-pick to suit their prejudices.
As far as Eich goes, he got himself into a very awkward position by donating a large amount of money to deny people the ability to marry who they loved. Nobody's proposing that Mozilla have executives who argue for killing homosexuals, regardless of religion.
It was great until 1992, when we had the Clintons in, who started this trend of self-aggrandizement.
Don't know your history very well, do you?
What makes the country great, you ask? Standing up for opportunity for all citizens to achieve what they aspire to - something that has been pummelled by both parties the last 24 years while serving special interests
Yeah, I'd love for something like that to get popular in this country. If you think we had anything like that in 1991, you REALLY don't know your history, son.
Read Leviticus. People are citing Leviticus to oppose homosexuality (although it says nothing about lesbians). Leviticus also has the death penalty for adultery, and says that gays should be killed.
Laws against hate speech are unconstitutional, except as aggravating circumstances for speech acts that are already illegal, and the main difference between the right wing and the left wing here is the exact speech they want censored.. Affirmative action is not contrary to the Fourteenth Amendment, any more than the pre-60s version (giving almost complete favoritism to whites over blacks) was. Gun control is a bipartisan thing, and what I see as the biggest violation of the Second Amendment was in Reagan's second term. Wanting to eliminate the Electoral College is perfectly Constitutional, as long as the means are Constitutional.
The reason I do not care about Muslims wanting Sharia law in the US is that there are too few of them to effectively push it.
I find it a graver concern because it's more likely. There are not enough Muslims in the country to worry about Sharia law. If we get more Muslims in over time, we'll also be getting some of the US-born ones to adopt US culture, which doesn't include pushing Sharia law. I'm not going to worry about being killed by a terrorist, because it's extremely unlikely, and for the same reason I'm not going to worry about imposition of Sharia law. You yourself claim that Sharia law is the law of the land in only two of the most extreme fundamentalist Muslim countries, and the US is very far from that.
You're confusing having a state church with the possibility of giving it a lot of influence in lawmaking. Typically, Western European churches don't have much political power. Nor does the fact that I admire Scandinavian societies mean I have to admire everything about them.
We're not talking about a general Christian movement in politics, but one generally rooted in fundamentalism, like Iran and Saudi Arabia to some extent. This does include large chunks of a legal system cherry-picked out of the Old Testament.
There's a difference between wanting to bang someone who looks like she could reproduce and someone who doesn't. There's a lot of genetic programming that says that a girl with big boobs and curvy hips is bangable. It's illegal for me to actually bang any girl under sixteen (in this state; other jurisdictions vary), and there's various good reasons why I wouldn't, but that doesn't mean there aren't hot-looking fifteen-year-olds.
Trump has already made a diplomatic incident with China, and his Cabinet and lower-level picks do not fill me with confidence. I was going to give him the benefit of the doubt, and he seems determined to remove the doubt.
Slashdot Mirror
And we're back to the old issue of duress in contract law. At some point, the pressure reaches the point where the victim will sign the contract or acquiesce to the sexual assault. I know of a case where the rapist threatened a woman's baby, and I've read of a case where the woman was in fear that the man would get violent if refused (I don't know how well-founded the fear was, and don't know that that's entirely relevant here). Women have said "yes" because they feared the consequences of saying "no". Like most aspects of consent, it gets complicated.
As an example, suppose I walk up to a woman in a mostly private place and ask "Want to give me a BJ?" Under normal circumstances, "yes" means yes and "no" means no. If I'm aiming a gun at her head, I'll argue that "yes" doesn't necessarily mean yes, and the woman is likely to comply because of fear. rather than free informed consent.
That sounds an awful lot like saying "Things aren't so bad. Why don't you just cheer up? You can decide that you'll be happy" to a depressive. It's one of the few things that provokes an instant anger response in me, because I've had experience with people telling me that and I know it's complete BS..
Speaking as someone with overly many decades of dealing with depression, I can see depression leading to use of social media sites.
Dad used to tell me that he had to go half a block to school through snow a quarter inch deep.
Let's see...I wear glasses to compensate for problems with my eyesight. I wear hearing aids to compensate for problems with my hearing. Summer before last, I used a cane to compensate for problems with walking. I use....you're probably happier not knowing about that. I take antidepressants to compensate for what are probably biochemical problems in my brain. I'm using all sorts of technology to compensate for things that don't work right with me. What's wrong with extending that to sexual function?
I'm fine with not RTFAing, but if you RTFS you'd know that the scientists are pointing out that causation could go either way. I find it very plausible that a depressive might immerse himself or herself in social sites.
It's an action against a leftist, and hence not a crime.
Similarly, have you noticed that "law and order" types are all about the order, and are eager to disregard the law when it gets inconvenient, like when it provides rights to the accused?
I really don't care about your concept of assault. This was a deliberate attempt to cause physical harm, and that is normally considered assault. The fact that it's done in a fairly novel way doesn't affect that. The courts have held that free speech doesn't extend to using speech acts to physically harm people. You are not allowed to incite attack on another person, for example, or make credible threats of physical harm.
As far as the detailed questions go, that's really for a court to decide when specific cases come up.
Are all police reports available to the media at all times, or do police departments sometimes withhold them while conducting investigations? I really don't know.
Has this ever been seriously asked on Slashdot?
Some bad guys are smart. Some are dumb. Some are mostly smart and make stupid mistakes. It makes sense to investigate and see if there's a dead end somewhere.
If the guy can know when peanuts are around with so slight an exposure, and/or show verifiable consistent reactions, then it's perfectly scientific. Science isn't limited by your imagination.
Saying "kill all men" is perfectly legal in the US. It only becomes illegal when used as incitement. "All men should be killed" is an expression of opinion, one I really don't care about (there's always assholes saying bad things about groups I'm in). "There's a man - kill him like the rest" is a hostile action.
Directly harming someone is not covered under freedom of speech.
Typically, women do not consent to someone grabbing their pussy. A lack of objection is not necessarily consent, particularly in an imbalance of power situation. Women may be afraid to object, or unwilling to cause a scene, or simply taken aback and unable to react before the hand is removed. Written consent isn't required, but "they let you" isn't really evidence of consent.
Yes, and I don't remember the chapter enough offhand to address the methodological problems. It did conclude that the number of women working as prostitutes would go up when demand was high, such as July 4th.
I thought that was obvious from the apparent belief that a porn filter is feasible.
Sex-positive feminism is more of a recent development, yes, although I don't know how much it just wasn't noticed in the days when the media got the most outrageous stuff from people like Andrea Dworkin. Personally, I'd like to see a situation where no woman would feel pressured to be in prostitution or porn production, and no woman would be pressured to stay out of it either.
There's different types of depression. There's situational depression, in which you're depressed because of the crap happening to you. I'm no expert, but my impression is that antidepressants are of very limited, if any, use in treating this. Mine was not situational. Some people asked me what I was depressed about, and the answer was, basically, nothing. That, I believe, is where antidepressants are useful. I'll agree that they are often overprescribed.
I'm also not over my depression, although I keep improving. A few years ago, I felt unhappy, instead of depressed, for the first time in something like fifteen years. I haven't seen that antidepressants in particular cause more problems than they can solve, and my ability to establish meaningful relations is far greater with them than without them. There are other psychiatric medications that have more serious ill effects, but the question is not "Is this person better off healthy or on those meds?" but rather "Is this person better off on these meds or off them?"
There's experimental evidence that depressives perceive the world more realistically than non-depressives. Since my impression is that Trump supporters are looking at him overly optimistically, and listening to what they want to hear, we'd be better off if they were on depressants.
My concern, as I said, is an approach to fundamentalist Christian theocracy, as that looks like the most likely religious danger to the US. By the time we have enough Muslims in the US for it to be even a faint worry, we'll have assimilated enough. The rate of growth in the US is pretty much irrelevant, since it's starting from such a small base. Islam is my least favorite major religion, but I'm not worried about it affecting US government.
It would be more correct to group the Founders as Deists rather than Christians, and they certainly did not set out to make a Christian country. The Christian ones can't really be understood by trying to shoehorn them into modern categories. Their specific views would look much like modern fundamentalism, but their attitude was nothing like modern fundamentalists. They were interested in science, and had no intention of imposing their specific religious views on others, or to define law to incorporate them. The main scientific wedge issue, evolution, was decades in the future.
I'm not sure why you're complaining about Islam incorporating secular law into religion, given that there's a lot of secular law in the early part of the Old Testament. The difference is that most Christians don't feel bound by those laws, except for the few they cherry-pick to suit their prejudices.
As far as Eich goes, he got himself into a very awkward position by donating a large amount of money to deny people the ability to marry who they loved. Nobody's proposing that Mozilla have executives who argue for killing homosexuals, regardless of religion.
Don't know your history very well, do you?
Yeah, I'd love for something like that to get popular in this country. If you think we had anything like that in 1991, you REALLY don't know your history, son.
Read Leviticus. People are citing Leviticus to oppose homosexuality (although it says nothing about lesbians). Leviticus also has the death penalty for adultery, and says that gays should be killed.
Laws against hate speech are unconstitutional, except as aggravating circumstances for speech acts that are already illegal, and the main difference between the right wing and the left wing here is the exact speech they want censored.. Affirmative action is not contrary to the Fourteenth Amendment, any more than the pre-60s version (giving almost complete favoritism to whites over blacks) was. Gun control is a bipartisan thing, and what I see as the biggest violation of the Second Amendment was in Reagan's second term. Wanting to eliminate the Electoral College is perfectly Constitutional, as long as the means are Constitutional.
The reason I do not care about Muslims wanting Sharia law in the US is that there are too few of them to effectively push it.
I find it a graver concern because it's more likely. There are not enough Muslims in the country to worry about Sharia law. If we get more Muslims in over time, we'll also be getting some of the US-born ones to adopt US culture, which doesn't include pushing Sharia law. I'm not going to worry about being killed by a terrorist, because it's extremely unlikely, and for the same reason I'm not going to worry about imposition of Sharia law. You yourself claim that Sharia law is the law of the land in only two of the most extreme fundamentalist Muslim countries, and the US is very far from that.
You're confusing having a state church with the possibility of giving it a lot of influence in lawmaking. Typically, Western European churches don't have much political power. Nor does the fact that I admire Scandinavian societies mean I have to admire everything about them.
We're not talking about a general Christian movement in politics, but one generally rooted in fundamentalism, like Iran and Saudi Arabia to some extent. This does include large chunks of a legal system cherry-picked out of the Old Testament.
There's a difference between wanting to bang someone who looks like she could reproduce and someone who doesn't. There's a lot of genetic programming that says that a girl with big boobs and curvy hips is bangable. It's illegal for me to actually bang any girl under sixteen (in this state; other jurisdictions vary), and there's various good reasons why I wouldn't, but that doesn't mean there aren't hot-looking fifteen-year-olds.
Trump has already made a diplomatic incident with China, and his Cabinet and lower-level picks do not fill me with confidence. I was going to give him the benefit of the doubt, and he seems determined to remove the doubt.