Why exactly? I understand that a 13 yo and a 33 yo is problematic due to age
and power differences, but two 13 yo? Because if we deem that 13 year olds having sex is harmful, then this is 2 children hurting each other. If they are not hurting each other, then sex is not harmful. Why is logic lost on everyone when sex gets involved?
What? Seriously? You think every manufacturer should have the right to tell you what you can do with their product once you bought it? What's next? Every movie studio telling you what you can do with a dvd you buy?
Mutually assured destruction is a very powerful deterrent. This theory has never been tested on a theocracy. There were a number of pretty self-destructive moves on the parts of European theocracies. 30 year war comes to mind. And even Ron Paul admits that Iran is one of 2 most extreme Muslim fundamentalist nations in the world. That having been said, they don't have and probably won't have the bomb.
That is, like most countries the U.S. fucks with, they want to be left alone. That is laughable. Their economy depends very heavily on oil exports. We are the biggest oil consumer. The most certainly do NOT want to be left alone. They are not aiming for war, but they do want Israel to play nice and be a country that plays the role of European Jews -- just sit there and take a beating once in a while.
No. Israel awaits the perfect reason (i.e., excuse) to do so. Are you out of your mind? They were invaded in 1977. Egyptian army was ON THEIR TERRITORY. And they still didn't nuke. Do you know how small Israel is? Do you know what it means to them when an Arab army manages to cross their border?
If Israel uses a nuclear bomb, they risk losing the support of the U.S., which would be very dangerous for them. Why would they need US support? Or why would they lose it? It would give US a perfect opportunity to take over the oil fields. As for the money that Israel gets from the US, it's less than 5 percent of their government budget. Not 5%. Less!. You think they would tolerate continuous aggression over 5% of the budget? Keep on hating, dude. Cause that's all you are doing.
Because Israel's religious fanatics are a political party that gets less than 10% of the vote in democratically held elections and Iran holds elections for show only.
So reality has nothing to do with things we say about Israel anymore? We can just revise the history as long as it suits our fancy to be hateful now? Israel was attacked all of those times, you jack ass. And yes, it is just perfectly hunky-dory-ok to take your enemy's territory when they attack you and kick the living shit out of them. Yes, in 2006, too. A cross-border raid to kidnap soldiers (especially when conducted by the security forces of a party that has parliamentary seats) is an act war.
Yeah, but our idiots are better than their idiots! Funny guy, ha! Well, at least our President isn't running a theocracy hell-bent on denying a genocide... in Armenia? Oh, the hell with you.
MS doesn't sue. They imitate or (when imitating fails) buy out. So expect them to buy out the revolutionary guard. It'll be a good marriage of corporate cultures. Both like holding hostages.
How excessive do laws have to get? Is there any end to the sheer fucking idiocy of people? I don't live in fear at all, I live in fucking anger and frustration because of all this BULLSHIT I hear about every day. May I suggest googling Ron Paul?:)
The people were condemned for trying to kill the Tsar. They tried to explode him with a bomb. And if memory serves, Lenin's response was "we will go a different way" -- not I will avenge. You have give him too much credit if you think this was personal. It was worse. He thought he was doing what's good.
"Beware of a man who means well" -- Aristotle
On a lighter note, when I throw a book at the wall, it's usually because I am frustrated with myself -- not with the book. But then again, sometimes I just kick a whole pile of them sitting by my desk intimidating me.:)
The opposite, I guess. Treat the as act as what it is rather than what it might be or what it might lead to or what the person was thinking of when he did it. With the possible exception being that if there is an indication of a clear intent to be harmful, then the crime is more egregious. But there has to be a very high burden of proof of such a clear intent. The arguments of the type "what else could he be thinking" and "it is usually the case that people do it because..." do not establish such an intent. Even eyewitness testimony is not enough. Only a clear authenticated recorded communication would be. This goes both for murder and for sex.
Of course, child molestation is a crime regardless of circumstances. But if it's done by 2 12-year-olds, they should both go to some sort of juvenile jail (or possibly mental institution?). My evidence is anecdotal, but someone on slashdot mentioned that Germany has age of consent of 14 (yeah, I know... lousy source). I don't think Germans are quite a society that every one argues we would be if the age of consent was 14. So our arguments are probably bogus. And yes, it does mean that 2 13-year-old should at least receive therapy (well, a judge should have the power to compel them to do so) if the are found having sex. By 14 such an overwhelming population of people has had sex that to make it illegal seems arbitrary. By 15 HALF of the teenagers have had sex. Can you imagine that what half of people did by the time they were 15 would be illegal when they are 14? That's not a law -- that's a way to make the entire population into criminals at police's discretion. Oh, and I do have sources for this "half" statistic: http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/child/2002-04-23-teen-sex.htm and http://www.childbirthsolutions.com/articles/pregnancy/teensex/index.php
Basically, there is no such thing as thought crime. This won't always be easier on perpetrators, btw. It will remove qualification "crime of passion" from murders of cheating lovers. Rather than examining whether people acted rationally when dealing with other people, the law can put the burden of demanding of everyone to act rationally. And not acting rationally would not be a crime in itself. If it lead to criminal behavior, then those crimes themselves would be treated without regard for the people's state of mind. Ie, "who gives a hoot about the motif?"
As for horny teenagers, it's just another drug war/prohibition/war on poverty... war on not thinking as "you should". Let it go. You can't save people from themselves. And when you try, too many innocent people get caught in the middle.
Ok, I guess now that I spent all this time laying it out, it's clear (to me at least) where this whole Meagan Law was shortsighted. If there are people who are sick enough that they can never be let out without some sort of supervision, they really must not be let out... I guess ever. I mean, the alternative is the current law which allows the police (if they so choose) to brand half of the population criminal enough that they must register where they live for the rest of their lives and expect to have their rights arbitrarily diminished at police's discretion. It's not so much a conspiracy theory (for one, I don't think the police has such resources) as a statement that in a society we purport to be such a scenario should not be even theoretically possible.
Actually, now I fail to see your logic, too. Sex inside of marriage is not harmful, but sex outside of marriage (between 18 and 16 year olds) is harmful? What if we just settle that parental consent is enough? Or does it have to be only within a marriage? Otherwise, you are (by definition) creating a class of people who can only have legal sex if married. Is that how far you want a free society to go? Again, where is the harm in kids having sex if parents know about it and don't forbid it? Or do you think the parents should be charged, too?
By the way, "coercion" is a misnomer in this case. I know this is the term applied, but coercion has to involve proactive use of force. To give an example, if I offer you shoes for 10000 dollars and because you don't have any understanding of how much the money is worth, you agree, then I still have not coerced you. If I take 10000 out of your hands and give you shoes in return and say "there I just sold you shoes", then I coerced you to buy shoes. But that's a digression from the main topic, I guess
So actually, I am beginning to think he is right. Convincing someone is not necessarily an indication of their gullibility. We can't presume to know what the other person is thinking 100% of the time. But anyhow, why does the government have to protect the gullible? If they are children, shouldn't their parents (or guardians) teach them (or have the right to teach them) what is right and wrong? Adult tricking a teenage girl to have sex is nasty, granted. But to say that the harm comes from the tricking rather than from the sex itself is to lower her to the status of a puppy. Either the damage comes from the sex itself (in which case sex with a younger guy is just as bad). Or it comes from trickery of someone who doesn't understand when they are being manipulated. But I am just not sure that I want to let the government speak other people's mind... even if those people are teenagers. But that's a different debate altogether.
Me thinks it's time to write a piece on the demonic nature of social conservatism.
You seem to be arguing that consensual sex is harmful. This is nonsense, unless you happen to be an environmentalist. Are you saying that environmentalists are necessarily nihilists? Environmental policy need not be about lowering levels of consumption. Changing modes of consumption could both enable higher levels of consumption and preserve the infrastructure necessary for supporting life.
Why charge the guy if he is 30? 'Cause he should know better. That doesn't apply quite as well at 18.
I think his argument was that people should be charged for a crime if they do damage. Regardless of whether they were aware of the full extent of the damage or not. He is not even arguing that teenage sex is harmful. Just that if it is harmful, then it is as harmful with an older person as it is with a younger.
Do you own research. But if you think it matters, you already gave in. Even if there was only person who was denied justice because of this law, it would mean that this law (when it works as intended -- not when it fails to work properly) does not establish justice. Actually, ANYONE who is deemed not to be able to live a free man in a free society cannot be released from prison or mental institution. To do otherwise, would be denying justice to all the innocent. And anyone who served his punishment must be allowed to live a free man. To do otherwise, would be denying justice to that one now-innocent.
I am not saying it. Neither is the law, btw. There have been cases of both people being minors and the guy getting charged. I have a better question. Why charge the guy? Unless it was rape (proper rather than statutory) wouldn't the girl be the one who has the power to refuse? I mean, are we are we really going with the theory that teenage boys have easier time refusing sex than teenage girls?
Either way, there is no reason why those people should be denied full freedoms as adults. So the problem is still the law.
You don't have a proper appreciation of how much or how little you are reading. Some people might think it's a plus, but other people need to manage their time more carefully.
It's not as easy to take notes in e-books. So most books that require deep thought and pondering are out of the question.
A good percentage of the people in that database are "criminals" who committed the statutory rape of having sex while in high school (because the other person was under age). We can laugh it off, but we are talking about these people having to register their entire life for what was essentially an innocent act. The problem here is not computers. It's the legal system. If someone is a threat to society so much so that they cannot live a free person, they must not be allowed out of a prison or hospital. And innocent behavior should not be a crime.
I just read some of it and it seems like a portal dedicated to exploring ways of turning math information into content. Which is not quite what I was talking about. Its purpose is to facilitate dissemination of well-understood information. That's not what an IDE is. IDE helps one to think creatively by keeping extensive details at the fingertips of a developer. I can't quite phrase it, so I'll resort to an analogy. gem's goal seems to be to be the same step above math books that wikipedia was above man pages. But what I am saying is missing is way to develop that which needs to be documented in the first place -- a way to do math rather than a way to teach math which would be more convenient on a computer than on paper. Again, think of what autocad did for engineers. It allowed to build more complicated structures by taking care of the routine parts of building trivial ones. And it did it in a way which made the end-product more elegant than the previous way of communicating between engineers. To borrow a sentiment from programming, who needs comments when you have well-written code? Well, a good tool would allow for well-written math.
C'mon, this is beyond big bucks. This what could change nanotech from curiosity to mainstream. Everyone talked about commercial infeasibility of the space elevator and such. But is that really about big bucks? If this works on large scale, it would be beyond money. It could redefine humanity.
Slashdot Mirror
What? Seriously? You think every manufacturer should have the right to tell you what you can do with their product once you bought it? What's next? Every movie studio telling you what you can do with a dvd you buy?
Because Israel's religious fanatics are a political party that gets less than 10% of the vote in democratically held elections and Iran holds elections for show only.
So reality has nothing to do with things we say about Israel anymore? We can just revise the history as long as it suits our fancy to be hateful now? Israel was attacked all of those times, you jack ass. And yes, it is just perfectly hunky-dory-ok to take your enemy's territory when they attack you and kick the living shit out of them. Yes, in 2006, too. A cross-border raid to kidnap soldiers (especially when conducted by the security forces of a party that has parliamentary seats) is an act war.
MS doesn't sue. They imitate or (when imitating fails) buy out. So expect them to buy out the revolutionary guard. It'll be a good marriage of corporate cultures. Both like holding hostages.
The people were condemned for trying to kill the Tsar. They tried to explode him with a bomb. And if memory serves, Lenin's response was "we will go a different way" -- not I will avenge. You have give him too much credit if you think this was personal. It was worse. He thought he was doing what's good.
"Beware of a man who means well" -- Aristotle
On a lighter note, when I throw a book at the wall, it's usually because I am frustrated with myself -- not with the book. But then again, sometimes I just kick a whole pile of them sitting by my desk intimidating me. :)
The opposite, I guess. Treat the as act as what it is rather than what it might be or what it might lead to or what the person was thinking of when he did it. With the possible exception being that if there is an indication of a clear intent to be harmful, then the crime is more egregious. But there has to be a very high burden of proof of such a clear intent. The arguments of the type "what else could he be thinking" and "it is usually the case that people do it because..." do not establish such an intent. Even eyewitness testimony is not enough. Only a clear authenticated recorded communication would be. This goes both for murder and for sex.
Of course, child molestation is a crime regardless of circumstances. But if it's done by 2 12-year-olds, they should both go to some sort of juvenile jail (or possibly mental institution?). My evidence is anecdotal, but someone on slashdot mentioned that Germany has age of consent of 14 (yeah, I know... lousy source). I don't think Germans are quite a society that every one argues we would be if the age of consent was 14. So our arguments are probably bogus. And yes, it does mean that 2 13-year-old should at least receive therapy (well, a judge should have the power to compel them to do so) if the are found having sex. By 14 such an overwhelming population of people has had sex that to make it illegal seems arbitrary. By 15 HALF of the teenagers have had sex. Can you imagine that what half of people did by the time they were 15 would be illegal when they are 14? That's not a law -- that's a way to make the entire population into criminals at police's discretion. Oh, and I do have sources for this "half" statistic: http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/child/2002-04-23-teen-sex.htm and http://www.childbirthsolutions.com/articles/pregnancy/teensex/index.php
Basically, there is no such thing as thought crime. This won't always be easier on perpetrators, btw. It will remove qualification "crime of passion" from murders of cheating lovers. Rather than examining whether people acted rationally when dealing with other people, the law can put the burden of demanding of everyone to act rationally. And not acting rationally would not be a crime in itself. If it lead to criminal behavior, then those crimes themselves would be treated without regard for the people's state of mind. Ie, "who gives a hoot about the motif?"
As for horny teenagers, it's just another drug war/prohibition/war on poverty... war on not thinking as "you should". Let it go. You can't save people from themselves. And when you try, too many innocent people get caught in the middle.
Ok, I guess now that I spent all this time laying it out, it's clear (to me at least) where this whole Meagan Law was shortsighted. If there are people who are sick enough that they can never be let out without some sort of supervision, they really must not be let out... I guess ever. I mean, the alternative is the current law which allows the police (if they so choose) to brand half of the population criminal enough that they must register where they live for the rest of their lives and expect to have their rights arbitrarily diminished at police's discretion. It's not so much a conspiracy theory (for one, I don't think the police has such resources) as a statement that in a society we purport to be such a scenario should not be even theoretically possible.
One more... you can throw a real book against the wall in frustration and pick it up afterwards.
Actually, now I fail to see your logic, too. Sex inside of marriage is not harmful, but sex outside of marriage (between 18 and 16 year olds) is harmful? What if we just settle that parental consent is enough? Or does it have to be only within a marriage? Otherwise, you are (by definition) creating a class of people who can only have legal sex if married. Is that how far you want a free society to go? Again, where is the harm in kids having sex if parents know about it and don't forbid it? Or do you think the parents should be charged, too?
By the way, "coercion" is a misnomer in this case. I know this is the term applied, but coercion has to involve proactive use of force. To give an example, if I offer you shoes for 10000 dollars and because you don't have any understanding of how much the money is worth, you agree, then I still have not coerced you. If I take 10000 out of your hands and give you shoes in return and say "there I just sold you shoes", then I coerced you to buy shoes. But that's a digression from the main topic, I guess
So actually, I am beginning to think he is right. Convincing someone is not necessarily an indication of their gullibility. We can't presume to know what the other person is thinking 100% of the time. But anyhow, why does the government have to protect the gullible? If they are children, shouldn't their parents (or guardians) teach them (or have the right to teach them) what is right and wrong? Adult tricking a teenage girl to have sex is nasty, granted. But to say that the harm comes from the tricking rather than from the sex itself is to lower her to the status of a puppy. Either the damage comes from the sex itself (in which case sex with a younger guy is just as bad). Or it comes from trickery of someone who doesn't understand when they are being manipulated. But I am just not sure that I want to let the government speak other people's mind... even if those people are teenagers. But that's a different debate altogether.
Me thinks it's time to write a piece on the demonic nature of social conservatism.
I think his argument was that people should be charged for a crime if they do damage. Regardless of whether they were aware of the full extent of the damage or not. He is not even arguing that teenage sex is harmful. Just that if it is harmful, then it is as harmful with an older person as it is with a younger.
Do you own research. But if you think it matters, you already gave in. Even if there was only person who was denied justice because of this law, it would mean that this law (when it works as intended -- not when it fails to work properly) does not establish justice. Actually, ANYONE who is deemed not to be able to live a free man in a free society cannot be released from prison or mental institution. To do otherwise, would be denying justice to all the innocent. And anyone who served his punishment must be allowed to live a free man. To do otherwise, would be denying justice to that one now-innocent.
I am not saying it. Neither is the law, btw. There have been cases of both people being minors and the guy getting charged. I have a better question. Why charge the guy? Unless it was rape (proper rather than statutory) wouldn't the girl be the one who has the power to refuse? I mean, are we are we really going with the theory that teenage boys have easier time refusing sex than teenage girls?
Either way, there is no reason why those people should be denied full freedoms as adults. So the problem is still the law.
(West Wing 2:25).
George Bush reads slashdot? It's a lie!
A good percentage of the people in that database are "criminals" who committed the statutory rape of having sex while in high school (because the other person was under age). We can laugh it off, but we are talking about these people having to register their entire life for what was essentially an innocent act. The problem here is not computers. It's the legal system. If someone is a threat to society so much so that they cannot live a free person, they must not be allowed out of a prison or hospital. And innocent behavior should not be a crime.
Thanks. I did not know about it. I'll take a look.
I just read some of it and it seems like a portal dedicated to exploring ways of turning math information into content. Which is not quite what I was talking about. Its purpose is to facilitate dissemination of well-understood information. That's not what an IDE is. IDE helps one to think creatively by keeping extensive details at the fingertips of a developer. I can't quite phrase it, so I'll resort to an analogy. gem's goal seems to be to be the same step above math books that wikipedia was above man pages. But what I am saying is missing is way to develop that which needs to be documented in the first place -- a way to do math rather than a way to teach math which would be more convenient on a computer than on paper. Again, think of what autocad did for engineers. It allowed to build more complicated structures by taking care of the routine parts of building trivial ones. And it did it in a way which made the end-product more elegant than the previous way of communicating between engineers. To borrow a sentiment from programming, who needs comments when you have well-written code? Well, a good tool would allow for well-written math.
C'mon, this is beyond big bucks. This what could change nanotech from curiosity to mainstream. Everyone talked about commercial infeasibility of the space elevator and such. But is that really about big bucks? If this works on large scale, it would be beyond money. It could redefine humanity.
Just to give you an idea how much trade we do with China, Chinese goods don't go through customs anymore.
Arrgh... so it should have been writing not "witting" in the last few lines. Maybe I should trust automated tools less....