Semantics. Generally things are illegal because they cause harm, which is morally objectionable. I don't want to debate the exceptions(there are plenty) because modern psychology understands abuse of minors to be very damaging, therefor judgement is reasonable.
Demonstrated willingness to commit a crime=the same kind of person who would actually commit a crime.
If a pickpocket takes a wallet full of fake cash and a tracking device from my back pocket, he still wanted to steal from me. He still had no moral qualms where he should have.
Humans: not rational. Absolutely a reasonable assertion. We spend more effort on trying to prevent pedophilia than other crimes per incident being wasteful is also a reasonable assertion. That said it's not being hysterical to say the crimes themselves are bad and should be prosecuted. It's just the rule of law.
Actually, I'd make the case "do x or I will shoot you" is simultaneous a crime of actionable threat, and a plausible affirmative defense on the part of the threatened, without necessarily being entrapment. "Do x or I will arrest you" is.
No, I think this is not the place to have yet another extended debate about how wrong neo-liberalism, consumerism, or corporatism are as an approach to economics.
Laws about minors revolves around the fact that, by necessity, not all of them are capable of rational consent, and any line used would be arbitrary, so an arbitrary one is used. It's not tyranny to seek limitations on those who would take advantage of naivete.
I mean, it's almost like your arguing against the existence of childhood.
From wikipedia: Entrapment arises when a person is encouraged by someone in some official capacity to commit a crime.
A private citizen completely lacks the ability to have official capacity. Police posing as civilians are also not entrapping anyone. To be entrapment, there must be a reason for the suspect to falsely believe their actions are legal on the part of someone associated with law enforcement(it doesn't have to be police).
Still no. The sting/entrapment distinction would still apply. Incitement means actively encouraging an illegal behavior. Otherwise we'd arresting attractive rape victims.
The public/private distinction is only one of the two mistakes the OP made.
Well, no. It's okay to be disgusted with crimes that harm others. Wanting an empirical approach to addressing crime doesn't mean the crime itself is intrinsically more OK.
You didn't read more than the title of my post did you? I was quoting the article, then I described my problems with its reasoning. Your post doesn't even begin to address the key idea of mine: controls. And yet you phrase it like a rebuttal. That's not good argumentation.
The numbers there are roughly proportional to the number of internet users from each country(just under 1 per million). So... sick-fuckitude crosses all races and cultures.
Eh, from what I've seen of previous cases, like tobacco or DDT, you eventually end in a state of relatively safe regulation, a few long-running whiners whose neo-liberal idealism won't let them shut-up decades after the science is settled, and life goes on.
Then again, there's also cases like "wind-mill disease" where the science is decidedly not on the side of the "little people". Taking the absolute position that corporations are always in the wrong will not set you on the course to righteous accuracy.
I wasn't even concerned with the specific assertions in question. I just saw the "never" and my scientific absolutist alarms went off. Correlation is one of the most useful tools in the data collection toolbox, and to assert it has not intrinsic empirical value was bothersome to me.
It does need to be used responsibly, with controls and awareness of uncontrolled variables. It doesn't lack value for "proving" things. Certainly the summary and abstract didn't give sufficient detail about what might have been considered in this particular case.
He meant as opposed to "outvironment" which is all that environment that's outdoors like birds and trees and shit. The "invironment" means his living room, and trust me, the natural gas leaks in there are no joke, especially with all the cheeto-based fracking.
I know it's a philosophy of science tangent, but this quote caught my attention. I mean in a strict sense, nothing is "proven" in science, so it's technically true. However, to the extent to which concepts can be "scientifically proven", the difference between correlation and causation comes down to one factor: controls. In experimental science, we control for variables by limiting the systems in play directly. In observational science, that's done with statistical controls on other known (and possible) factors. With enough data, that can be done in a manner that is robust enough to be called science.
I don't think it's fair to take a benign assertion like "correlation is not causation" and extend it to an absolutist position.
Slashdot Mirror
Semantics. Generally things are illegal because they cause harm, which is morally objectionable. I don't want to debate the exceptions(there are plenty) because modern psychology understands abuse of minors to be very damaging, therefor judgement is reasonable.
So standing on a street corner in lingerie, with a sign saying "I am a prostitute, pay me money for sex", is not entrapment?
Hooray, that's correct. Whoever told you otherwise was a liar.
Boiling down your core argument: Dumb people hold back democracy. It's undeniable, but none of the solutions to that problem are going to take either.
I think you might want to look up the definition of "actively"
You're right. Not all adults are, and we do have laws to protect them too. That's not a valid justification.
Demonstrated willingness to commit a crime=the same kind of person who would actually commit a crime.
If a pickpocket takes a wallet full of fake cash and a tracking device from my back pocket, he still wanted to steal from me. He still had no moral qualms where he should have.
No, sorry, the "language evolves" trump card doesn't apply to the legal system.
Humans: not rational. Absolutely a reasonable assertion. We spend more effort on trying to prevent pedophilia than other crimes per incident being wasteful is also a reasonable assertion. That said it's not being hysterical to say the crimes themselves are bad and should be prosecuted. It's just the rule of law.
Actually, I'd make the case "do x or I will shoot you" is simultaneous a crime of actionable threat, and a plausible affirmative defense on the part of the threatened, without necessarily being entrapment. "Do x or I will arrest you" is.
No, I think this is not the place to have yet another extended debate about how wrong neo-liberalism, consumerism, or corporatism are as an approach to economics.
Oh wah, a stranger on the internet judged people for taking advantage of a seeming child. How ever will society live this injustice down?!?!?!
Laws about minors revolves around the fact that, by necessity, not all of them are capable of rational consent, and any line used would be arbitrary, so an arbitrary one is used. It's not tyranny to seek limitations on those who would take advantage of naivete.
I mean, it's almost like your arguing against the existence of childhood.
Well, I don't think anyone involved has been formally indicted, and, if you read Europol's statement regarding it, it seems unlikely anyone will be.
I think that you'll find that it does.
From wikipedia:
Entrapment arises when a person is encouraged by someone in some official capacity to commit a crime.
A private citizen completely lacks the ability to have official capacity. Police posing as civilians are also not entrapping anyone. To be entrapment, there must be a reason for the suspect to falsely believe their actions are legal on the part of someone associated with law enforcement(it doesn't have to be police).
Still no. The sting/entrapment distinction would still apply. Incitement means actively encouraging an illegal behavior. Otherwise we'd arresting attractive rape victims.
The public/private distinction is only one of the two mistakes the OP made.
Well, no. It's okay to be disgusted with crimes that harm others. Wanting an empirical approach to addressing crime doesn't mean the crime itself is intrinsically more OK.
You didn't read more than the title of my post did you? I was quoting the article, then I described my problems with its reasoning. Your post doesn't even begin to address the key idea of mine: controls. And yet you phrase it like a rebuttal. That's not good argumentation.
This wasn't the police. How can you have police entrapment with no police involvement?
I wish people would stop claiming entrapment for stings. They're completely distinct.
Well, Europol thought that they exceeded the appropriate investigative behavior for civilians. So you might not be the only one to think so.
The numbers there are roughly proportional to the number of internet users from each country(just under 1 per million). So... sick-fuckitude crosses all races and cultures.
Eh, from what I've seen of previous cases, like tobacco or DDT, you eventually end in a state of relatively safe regulation, a few long-running whiners whose neo-liberal idealism won't let them shut-up decades after the science is settled, and life goes on.
Then again, there's also cases like "wind-mill disease" where the science is decidedly not on the side of the "little people". Taking the absolute position that corporations are always in the wrong will not set you on the course to righteous accuracy.
I wasn't even concerned with the specific assertions in question. I just saw the "never" and my scientific absolutist alarms went off. Correlation is one of the most useful tools in the data collection toolbox, and to assert it has not intrinsic empirical value was bothersome to me.
It does need to be used responsibly, with controls and awareness of uncontrolled variables. It doesn't lack value for "proving" things. Certainly the summary and abstract didn't give sufficient detail about what might have been considered in this particular case.
He meant as opposed to "outvironment" which is all that environment that's outdoors like birds and trees and shit. The "invironment" means his living room, and trust me, the natural gas leaks in there are no joke, especially with all the cheeto-based fracking.
I know it's a philosophy of science tangent, but this quote caught my attention. I mean in a strict sense, nothing is "proven" in science, so it's technically true. However, to the extent to which concepts can be "scientifically proven", the difference between correlation and causation comes down to one factor: controls. In experimental science, we control for variables by limiting the systems in play directly. In observational science, that's done with statistical controls on other known (and possible) factors. With enough data, that can be done in a manner that is robust enough to be called science.
I don't think it's fair to take a benign assertion like "correlation is not causation" and extend it to an absolutist position.
Also, it demeans your user base's intelligence. We can get that kind of drivel on buzzfeed or reddit.