You could say that about most of the things taught in school. I don't get the attitude on here by a lot of people that programming is so super-special it's different from every other subject and should only be found by those who go looking.
A lot of people on slashdot are programmers. So they think programming is super-special. If you went to a lawyers' forum, most people there would think that lawyers were super-special.
40 hours a day of work is fucking NOTHING compared to previous generations
Right. I had to get up in the morning at ten o'clock at night, half an hour before I went to bed, eat a lump of cold poison, work twenty-nine hours a day down mill, and pay mill owner for permission to come to work, and when we got home, our Dad would kill us, and dance about on our graves singing "Hallelujah."
But you try and tell the young people today that... and they won't believe you.
You have obviously never worked or lived on a farm. Farming is hard work, and frequently highly stressful. Regularly working 90 or 100 hour weeks is stressful in itself, and this is not uncommon during busy periods on a farm.
A final part may be changing forward-facing seats for rear-facing ones as they are better for crash survivability, although people do like to see where they are going.
I'm quite happy having a rear-facing seat on a train. And the idea that on a plane you can see anything with your forward-facing seat is self evidently absurd (unless you're the pilot).
I don't see that having rear facing seats would be much of an issue in cars as long as you were never going to need any human intervention.
You are correct in the sense that in Victorian times being a rich woman was better than being a poor man, but it was still nowhere near as good as being a rich man.
There is nothing in the passages you quote to explain why the right to vote shouldn't apply equally to men and women, regardless of the particular balalnce of financial rights and responsibilities between the sexes.
Byron was only a minor English poet if you count everyone apart from Shakespeare (including Chaucer, Milton, Wordsworth and TS Eliot) as minor English poets.
Most people never get called on their 3 felonies per day, so it can be used to single out people no more guilty than typical.
Most people don't do 3 felonies a day. I personally haven't done a felony in over 30 years (when I last visited the USA) and 95% of the worlds population seldom if ever visit the "Land of the Free" which is the only place that has felons (a class of people who have their rights curtailed forever, originally so the King could take their property (fief)).
It is a right wing meme that the government has created so many laws that everyone is guilty of breaking x number every day without realising it. There's a quote from (of course) Ayn Rand that they usually drag in to "prove" their point, but I can't be arsed to find it.
If you commit a crime as a juvenile and are convicted, your record is (used to be?) expunged once you turned 18.
Not in the UK.
Cautions will become spent convictions and not discloseable, but certainly any sexual or violent offence involving a conviction will stay on your record and show up in any future DBS check.
A 14-year boy is still a boy. He's still learning how to behave, making mistakes and learning from them. He sent a naked photo of himself to a girl. SO FUCKING WHAT? Talk to the parents and let them explain to him why that's not acceptable. It's their responsibility to raise the child and educate him to be able to function in society.
If you're 14 and you break the law, you have to face the consequences. If you get caught shoplifting, your mistake will potentially attract a criminal record.
The issue of whether this should count as a crime is a separate question. There is a lot of panic about underage sex, but on the other hand there is also undeniably a level of exploitation of under 16s too. It's not all purely imaginary "think of the children" made up hysteria, but it sounds like the law is being interpreted too literally here: two fourteen year olds engaging in sexual activity has never been the problem.
No. Is a 14 year old human sexually mature? Hell yes.
Being able to generate a sperm and eggs does not make one sexually mature. It makes one sexually capable. There's a very big difference. You got that right in every other one of your examples but for some reason you missed the point in this one.
Although I do give you one very clear point: A child has a biological definition as someone who hasn't met puberty. So while they may be legally considered children, morally we can argue till the cows come up, and biologically they are most definitely no longer children at 14.
What does?
"Mature" is a silly word to use in this context. An animal is sexually mature if it can reproduce, it's got nothing to do with emotional, psychological or intellectual maturity.
Slashdot Mirror
You could say that about most of the things taught in school. I don't get the attitude on here by a lot of people that programming is so super-special it's different from every other subject and should only be found by those who go looking.
A lot of people on slashdot are programmers. So they think programming is super-special. If you went to a lawyers' forum, most people there would think that lawyers were super-special.
And yes, you do have to start with the basics and work up, whether it's in maths, physics, Art History or French.
You start by teaching kids how to say "bonjour" not throwing Proust at them and expecting them to work out all the grammar and vocabulary themselves.
Please give us a hint as to how you determine that the Mossad is most likely involved.
Well, they haven't issued a statement denying it, have they?
40 hours a day of work is fucking NOTHING compared to previous generations
Right. I had to get up in the morning at ten o'clock at night, half an hour before I went to bed, eat a lump of cold poison, work twenty-nine hours a day down mill, and pay mill owner for permission to come to work, and when we got home, our Dad would kill us, and dance about on our graves singing "Hallelujah."
But you try and tell the young people today that... and they won't believe you.
Farms may be a less stressful environment.
You have obviously never worked or lived on a farm. Farming is hard work, and frequently highly stressful. Regularly working 90 or 100 hour weeks is stressful in itself, and this is not uncommon during busy periods on a farm.
As an interesting (or not) aside, if it was named small pox then there must have been a large pox disease. That was gonorrhea.
No, it was syphilis.
A final part may be changing forward-facing seats for rear-facing ones as they are better for crash survivability, although people do like to see where they are going.
I'm quite happy having a rear-facing seat on a train. And the idea that on a plane you can see anything with your forward-facing seat is self evidently absurd (unless you're the pilot).
I don't see that having rear facing seats would be much of an issue in cars as long as you were never going to need any human intervention.
So basically there don't need to be any controls whatsoever on anthrax because it's "natural"?
there is a chance he was at least careful enough to not fly it over areas where people were. It did say that it crashed into a section of empty seats.
I think the key word there is "crashed".
It wasn't harmless.
It was harmless. As in, according to the story, there was no harm caused.
If I dropped a tarantula on your lap, but it was a bit sleepy and didn't try to bite your cock off, would you still say it was harmless?
Yeah, probably get those revisionist scumbags PopeRatzo and AmiMoJo posting in the comments too
And a lot of Anonymous Cowards with the aforementioned "whining comments about feminism and dicksucking "jokes".
There is nothing in the passages you quote to explain why the right to vote shouldn't apply equally to men and women, regardless of the particular balalnce of financial rights and responsibilities between the sexes.
But if you can't even take a joke, then you don't belong in the workplace.
Ah yes, the classic "harmless banter" argument.
You probably don't believe that there's any such thing as bullying at school, just a bit of lighthearted physical pranking, right?
Byron was only a minor English poet if you count everyone apart from Shakespeare (including Chaucer, Milton, Wordsworth and TS Eliot) as minor English poets.
We have all been told child pornography is this horrible thing that scars children for life and furthers abuse of children.
That's because it is, and it does, if you're referring to actual pictures/videos of children being raped.
I agree that one teenager sending another teenager a naked pic is not the same thing.
Most people never get called on their 3 felonies per day, so it can be used to single out people no more guilty than typical.
Most people don't do 3 felonies a day. I personally haven't done a felony in over 30 years (when I last visited the USA) and 95% of the worlds population seldom if ever visit the "Land of the Free" which is the only place that has felons (a class of people who have their rights curtailed forever, originally so the King could take their property (fief)).
It is a right wing meme that the government has created so many laws that everyone is guilty of breaking x number every day without realising it. There's a quote from (of course) Ayn Rand that they usually drag in to "prove" their point, but I can't be arsed to find it.
If you commit a crime as a juvenile and are convicted, your record is (used to be?) expunged once you turned 18.
Not in the UK.
Cautions will become spent convictions and not discloseable, but certainly any sexual or violent offence involving a conviction will stay on your record and show up in any future DBS check.
Perhaps you should read the article
Burn the witch!
I'm confused. Exposing yourself makes you pregnant?
I believe OP's point was that being hysterical about nudity does not encourage sensible sexual behaviour in teenagers.
If you think you are having an argument with me you should re-read my comment. A right is protection against government oppression.
The right to life is the right to not be killed by anyone. If you think only governments kill people then you are wrong.
It's the individual human right to do something harmless, even if somewhat offensive and to have it forgotten.
It is also up to society to decide what is harmless. There is no Platonic Ideal of harmlessness you can refer to.
A 14-year boy is still a boy. He's still learning how to behave, making mistakes and learning from them. He sent a naked photo of himself to a girl. SO FUCKING WHAT? Talk to the parents and let them explain to him why that's not acceptable. It's their responsibility to raise the child and educate him to be able to function in society.
If you're 14 and you break the law, you have to face the consequences. If you get caught shoplifting, your mistake will potentially attract a criminal record.
The issue of whether this should count as a crime is a separate question. There is a lot of panic about underage sex, but on the other hand there is also undeniably a level of exploitation of under 16s too. It's not all purely imaginary "think of the children" made up hysteria, but it sounds like the law is being interpreted too literally here: two fourteen year olds engaging in sexual activity has never been the problem.
It's illegal to record the female orgasm in the UK
Are you sure? I've never come across that before (pun intended).
The creation of the category "teenager" should have filled that bill
"Teenagers" were invented basically as a marketing tool, much like the "Young Adult" category was recently in fiction.
Seventy years ago you were either a child or an adult. Twenty years ago you either read children's or adult literature.
In both cases there is not some magic difference between 12 and 13 or 19 and 20.
No. Is a 14 year old human sexually mature? Hell yes.
Being able to generate a sperm and eggs does not make one sexually mature. It makes one sexually capable. There's a very big difference. You got that right in every other one of your examples but for some reason you missed the point in this one.
Although I do give you one very clear point: A child has a biological definition as someone who hasn't met puberty. So while they may be legally considered children, morally we can argue till the cows come up, and biologically they are most definitely no longer children at 14.
What does?
"Mature" is a silly word to use in this context. An animal is sexually mature if it can reproduce, it's got nothing to do with emotional, psychological or intellectual maturity.