Neither of those Bills are restricting to "Citizens of the United States". I'm at work so will have to dig where that specific language is used, but it is used very sparingly intentionally in the rare case that it's used (I believe 1 time).
If this was not referencing "People" in a general sense why would the founders have complained about England searching all their shit and demanding papers? England's ideology would have matched their ideology if that was the case, and England's ideology did not match hence we have our own country and constitution. Ben Franklin would have been expecting to be treated as a criminal in France instead of being treated as a free "Person". He did expect to be treated as a free person where ever he traveled as a diplomat.
The language used in the Constitution and Bill of Rights is very intentionally done. There are no inconsistencies in the original bill of rights meanings for various words (amendments later would obviously have slightly different language).
Your evidence is in the words themselves, but you can read the Federalist Papers in addition to notes by the founders, first congress, biographies, etc... The mistake most people make is trying to claim a word used in the Constitution means one thing in one area and another thing somewhere else, and it does not.
Which is not what was intended. "People" in the Bill of rights unless it says otherwise is a term for all people including non-citizens. Your particular interpretation is publicly claimed but historically incorrect.
Spying was known to the founders, and they expected that if a Spy was caught the Spy would be killed. That worked in both directions. While spying is certainly something we can see benefit in, the US Constitutional has laws protecting spies. The job of a spy is to break the law and ignore basic human rights.
Part of the escalation of the Government has to claim that "People" are not all "People" and they use that abomination of the term to grant themselves powers. This is why they kill "Combatant" age people and not "Civilian" when there is collateral damage in the Middle East. The language chosen both today and when our Constitution was written is done so very intentionally, pay attention to it!!
The problem is that you are ASSUMING, in the first place, that the person taking photographs of something that happens in public is committing a crime. On what basis do you make this judgment? Where would you draw the line? (And this is the whole problem.) You want to take pictures of a public building? Why not? That's not a crime, is it? Well, what if there are people on the front steps of the building? Is it suddenly a crime to take a picture?
Excellent question, I had to think about this one. This is not a person taking pictures of a public building, obviously, so we can scratch that viewpoint. I believe what we should be doing is asking "When is taking a picture illegal?".
I gave the pornographic photography example earlier. Even if a person is exposing themselves there are pornography rules that must be followed in every State. Adult photographers must have knowledge that the person is over 18 in all States, and a consent form proving age is required for just snapping and possessing a photo. These laws are intended to protect people from exploitation, so this is an easy target for "when is taking a picture illegal?" isn't it? These laws are not just when selling images, but when in possession of such images and materials.
We can go a bit further and find that persons are supposed to report crimes. The person with the camera in this case did not report the crime and held evidence to crime. Sure, it's a bit abstract for prosecuting but the judge could have allowed this method of prosecution because the case itself was a bit abstract.
But if you make the simple rule: "If you don't want it seen, don't show it" then everybody knows what the line is, and nobody has to try to read anybody else's mind to know whether their behavior is criminal or not. AND... you don't have anybody bullying anybody else over threats of saying they committed a crime when they didn't.
A person shoving a camera under someone's skirt/dress and taking photos is not the same thing as a person showing something voluntarily. I believe this is where our view of the situation is different. If the person taking pictures was sitting in a different seat and the pictures were from the front or back showing exposed parts we would not be having a debate. The people that brought up charges were not out flashing people.
And that's actually the way the law is in most places. In one state nearby, for instance, they tried to pass a law against "upskirt" photographs, but they couldn't because they could not find a way to define the law. It is legal to go naked in public if you want, but if you do -- because it's public -- you can be photographed. How can you square that with a law against taking photos up a skirt? Answer: you can't. Not without saying somebody is guilty of a crime based on nothing but someone else's word.
I don't know of any State where it is legal to be naked in public, even California has laws regarding public nudity (this is not related to nude beaches which are private and require membership, registration, and have rules of their own). In SF I have seen a person with tin foil over their private parts in order to be legal, and wearing nothing but the tin foil. Even that extreme is not what we are talking about here.
Legislatures having difficulty is not an issue of not being able to define a law, it's not agreeing on a certain aspect of the law such as blaming the victim. I'm not sure if you noticed but our Legislature has difficulty with many tasks, as do judges. As I said above, I think the issue with pornographic images would be the avenue of approach that most people would not complain about. If you can prove it was "you" in the picture you can bring up the complaint. If public nudity is shown in a publicly posted photo, and no age and consent form exists then there can be a case. I really don't think a jury would have difficulty making a decision if enough evidence exists. In other words, this should not be in a the judges hands alone. This is why a "Jury of Peers" is critical to our Justice system.
I need to correct a statement. I'm getting sleepy and missed this proof reading not once, but twice. A pedophile is arrested for having child porn even when there are no crimes. should (hopefully obviously) have been written as A pedophile is arrested for having child porn even when there are no victims.
I see your point, but still don't fully agree. I don't believe that the intent of the victim should be a consideration in a criminal case. This would be true even if the person that a crime was committed against, was committing a crime (thinking more along the lines of a drug dealer getting murdered or something very obvious). I don't think I agree with your opinion as a whole, but I still think your point has merits worth consideration as to a method of ruling that works in a slightly different way than we are accustomed to.
Given your examples, the person on the bus flashing people is committing a crime. Yes, even if the person is a hottie of the gender you happen to be attracted to. This would be indecent exposure and/or public nuisance at a minimum. Sure, we could go way out on the extreme and give the hypothetical that you 2 are the only ones on the bus.
If you are a moral human, you would not sit and take pictures even if this was the case. You may not turn away, or perhaps you would. Perhaps you would make a request to stop that behavior while in public, and it could even be done with progression in mind. "You know, I think you are really hot and if you want to do that in private I'm getting off at 1st street. Right now, we are in public and I would hate for someone as attractive as you go to jail or get a huge fine for public nudity."
If you are the person taking pictures, it's a different crime. This is what I mentioned previously. Even if the person flashing you is acting illegally, your actions are also illegal.
Reading this and the first post, I think this is still a slightly different version of "she was asking for it". I'm sure you could see it if you tried to separate the two sets of crimes.
But when it comes to social situations, how do you prove what was "intended"? It's one person's word against another.
In public this would be a very rare circumstance. The person in TFA took pictures on busy buses, not isolated with him and the victim. I'm not sure if there were witnesses or not in the original case, but I do remember reading his operating mode was using crowds as cover for his actions. As mentioned previously I believe his actions were criminal in two ways. A public witness should not be required since he not only invaded a persons privacy to take the picture, but he illegally posted pornographic material without the victims consent, without age verification, and without the victims knowledge. Those actions should make it very apparent that he did not have permission, and was not getting flashed by someone.
If it was one victim, I think I would give them more benefit of the doubt. This fact adds huge weight to the intent of acting criminally. This was numerous victims, and most of them didn't come forward. Just like with other sexual crimes there is a high percentage of people that feel embarrassed and won't come forward. That does not make a sexual predator not a sexual predator. Not to present a "for the children argument" but this is an easy one. A pedophile is arrested for having child porn even when there are no crimes. Adult sites are shut down and people are jailed if they do not have consent forms and age verification forms handy for every model and film they have. Not necessarily victimless crimes, but a victim does not need to be present for the actions to be illegal.
So it seems like we disagree, and that's okay. I still like your method of simplifying the laws down drastically. I'll have fun juggling that around in my head.
Thanks for the courteous responses, it's a pleasure to have dialogue with you. Even if we disagree in opinion the exchange is well articulated and respectful from you.
Those people are not speaking about things they never had, these people are speaking about what was lost. Things like family members, relatives, property/heirlooms/valuables/clothing, limbs, peace of mind, personal health, and many lives worth of work.
I notice guns aren't on that list. From an earlier post:
I believe that you are attempting to cherry pick for your opinion, which is unbecoming at best.
Ask the Jewish community in Germany how well they could fight back after losing all their guns. Ask the people Mao killed how it worked out for them, or ask the people Stalin killed, or Pol Pot, or Kim, etc...
Now correct me if I'm wrong here, but I don't believe they had guns in the first place, which was the point I was trying to make there.
A history book will show that you are wrong. Not just with recent tyrannies but follow that back to ancient Greece and you can see the same thing.
That said, the reason why they can't push a button and make a tyranny in the US like they have done in other places is because the US population _can_ fight back.
Doesn't mean it's not happening anyway, just more slowly and with more subtlety. Even if you've got guns throughout the whole process, that's not going to prevent it happening. By the time enough people finally decide it is time to fight back with the guns, it'll be too late.
I told you I don't argue the point it's been happening, I'm arguing that we have hope that other countries without an armed populace does not. That is not to imply that a revolt in the US would not be bloody, but less innocent people would be killed than in a place that also has to fight to find arms to fight with.
It works well enough in actual democracies without easy access to guns. For whatever faults our electoral system has (and they are certainly there), it is an actual functional democracy.
I doubt this is true very much. The US does not have a monopoly on having a few people with money push certain people into politics without the public noticing. Only certain people get advertisements, favorable spots on the 'news' channels, TV time, body guards so that they can visit locations, banners and flyers that are not defaced, etc... I can see why many people believe their democracy is better than the US. "The Allegory of the Cave" is a wonderful vehicle.
Well, that's a nice and comforting belief to have, but it won't happen. People will complain, there will be some protests, and maybe even the odd attack on government buildings, but the people as a whole will not fight back in any meaningful way. Maybe some time down the line when there's a lot more abuses going on, but "President gets third term" won't be the tipping point.
Well, people are already openly questioning a president acting like a dictator. It may take more, but it may take less. Both are speculating, I simply pointed out that people are slowly waking up. Lots can happen between now and the next election. For example the debt based economy that's been created may break before then, forcing a faster change.
Thanks for the response. Contemplating your answer a bit I think this does go to intent as you state (more on this below), but also at what point does it become a criminal action. It should be criminal for a person to peek over your shoulder or up your skirt in a public place. Publishing the picture would be a different crime (pornography/theft/defamation/etc..). So this case is not 1 charge, but two charges. The second charge I agree is complex, but the first should not be a concern to address.
You can't base laws on what people were thinking at the time. It just doesn't work.
Is this statement in error? The statement is not true in any modern law system (1700s' to present). The primary concern in Western / US Law is 'mens rea'. This means if the guy was 3' tall and had no choice but to see people's private parts they would get leeway that a person of normal height does not. Establishing "intent" is what the person was thinking at the time they committed a crime. You may have possibly written something you did not intend.
Oh Noes! A person made a correction to an error on the Internet! Sarcasm aside, are you not doing the same exact thing to this person whilst you mod them? Correcting them for correcting someone else' real mistake that is.
Hypocrisy is often difficult to see, so I'll ask you to lift your visor.
I've always thought that judges have to implement the law as it's written.
I believe this is where we disagree, as mentioned earlier and by the prosecutors in TFA the "intent" of the law is critical to a judges ruling.
Sure, we would most likely agree that murder laws can not be used to charge bribery unless both occurred (I surely agree). Obviously a judge can't take an arbitrary law to prosecute someone.
That said, no wording or law can be written without some ambiguity. That's not a limitation of "Law" but a limitation of language. It should not be a lawmakers job to write specific laws for very specific detailed things either. This line of thinking has gotten us to the point we are at today with law, and the system has become a mess which is impossible to manage and openly corrupt.
I'm not sure I agree with that primarily because in order to get such a picture, the person taking it must invade someone's privacy.
A judge's job is supposed to prosecute people for wrong doing and of course release innocent people based on the law. This case is absolutely wrong doing, and I have not seen anyone defending the guy's actions or claiming he was not criminal. The judges job is not to twist the intention of the law to let people off on technicalities. Remember this is not something lacking because of technological advance, it was a technicality based on the way the judges decided to interpret wording. And fine, if they can't use a law regarding lewd photography charge, why not a peeping tom law? A judge can direct prosecution in this way which would have still resulted in penalty, but obviously different punishment.
In this case, the judges did not perform their primary role of interpreting the law based on the intent of the law. Prosecutors in TFA agree with that assessment.
Says the person who invited me to conduct a seance to have conversations with people about how they coped with losing things they never had...
No seance is necessary and no sarcasm necessary. As stated several times read a book and learn from history. There have been plenty written on the subject and the opinions of the people are pretty clear. They should have fought back and spoken out against a growing tyranny. Those biographies are very unanimous on that part. Niemöller was not the only person to publish this thinking, he was one of countless people in history.
Those people are not speaking about things they never had, these people are speaking about what was lost. Things like family members, relatives, property/heirlooms/valuables/clothing, limbs, peace of mind, personal health, and many lives worth of work.
And that's working out so brilliantly for you, isn't it? The US government, as an overall institution, is horrendously corrupt. All other democracies do have their own corruption problems too, of course, but the US has it at a ridiculous level. Having guns has not helped you. The only real effect it can be said to have had on corruption, oppression and tyranny is that they're carried out more subtly, indirectly and insidiously, rather than the overt sort enough people know to fight against. Half the population knowing they have to fight and being determined to despite having improvised weapons is worth more than a small fringe with real weapons.
We agree on that point, no argument here. I'm one voice in 350 million people and have no control over others. Just like every other country with corruption, people get controlled by the media and propaganda. That said, the reason why they can't push a button and make a tyranny in the US like they have done in other places is because the US population _can_ fight back. As one voice I try and wake people up every day, it works but is a slow process. I don't get paid to wake people up and have to work and take care of my family too. It will get to a tipping point, and all of the harping the awake people have been doing is paying off. This is why the Government is trying to escalate removal of guns from people, gun registration, and making lists of 'who is who'.
Quite honestly it is a bizarre, and disturbing process to live through and watch unfold.
Hell no. I hate the shitty things my government does, and speak up about it whenever I'm able to. And it'll be a fucking miracle if they stay in power at the next election. But if I had a gun... the government would still be doing shitty things to people. Doing anything with the gun to try to make a difference would achieve nothing but having some hot lead delivered to my brain at high speed. (For the record, the shitty things my government are doing consist largely of fucking industrial relations and demonising refugees; nothing in the league of rounding up people they don't like and gassing them.)
This has not worked in so called democratic places without easy access to guns has it? I have no idea where are from and don't honestly need to know. There are too many examples to choose from where democracies are on paper only outside of the US. And before you say it, yes the US has become that same paper democracy but it's not always obvious to people living here. The difference I gave above still holds true. In Mexico the "President" can elect himself back into office as often as he wants and the people can't do anything about it. In the US if Obama did the same people would start hunting down politicians (or at least this is my belief).
If the US candidates for President are Clinton and Bush again, the game will be up because it's too obvious. People's suspicion have been growing for a long time, and that will make it very clear to those on the fence. I have hope that the NWO people are overconfident and make such a big mistake.
I never gave the CDC as a statistic source, I said the CDC claimed that the vaccine was safe. I should have clarified, perhaps, but so should you since you keep claiming to want statistics from the CDC and claiming that I provided statistics from the CDC. That quote is below and has no claim of statistics. If you did any research at all on what I gave you to search you will find numerous ad campaigns from various sources in addition to manufactures attempting to get legislation passed to force Gardasil vaccines on women. As mentioned previously there are numerous class action suits against the maker currently in action and many more already closed. The sad part is that most of those closures come with gag orders.
Here is that quote verbatim: I gave Gardasil as an example which for years was touted as completely safe by manufacturers, the CDC, and the US Department of Health. That statement is very obviously not a statistic but a statement regarding released opinions on a vaccine by certain sources (which are still searchable).
OK, so you spout factually questionable claims
I stated up front that the odds for becoming critically ill from a vaccine is dependent on the vaccine. You continue to omit this sentence while claiming I gave a wrong number. Later, you gave a single statistic for a single problem as the whole of the vaccine statistics. I used simplified numbers in that post to show how what you were doing was mathematically unsound for claiming a vaccine's rate of issues.
Care to claim that your numbers were fabricated and that you were presenting biased information? Yeah, I didn't think so.
Your first post in this thread that I responded to is here where I noted that your statistical claims in that post are unsupported nonsense. We're still holding firm there. If you're in favor of people making educated decisions based on real risk analysis, don't spread bad numbers. Spread good, well-supported numbers.
See above. Will you deny that lobbyists exist and pass bad laws protecting pharmaceutical companies? Will you deny that claims of problems with vaccines are blocked, misreported, and not reported even though medical professionals will tell you otherwise? Will you deny that people are bullied into silence by court proceedings so that the truth becomes buried at least a measurable percentage of the time? We know that cases happen and are settled without a public ruling, and we know that people are forced into silence in order to get treatment or receive damages. Those things can be proven, but the frequency is not provable.
Your first post in this thread that I responded to is here where I noted that your statistical claims in that post are unsupported nonsense
WRONG! You read what you wanted to read and ignored a key sentence! See the first item!
True, but so general as to be totally meaningless. Drinking water from your tap has risk. Eating ice cream has risk. Playing miniature golf has risk. That's why we use numbers to quantify that risk. I don't see people leaping into threads about mini golf pointing out that people should carefully evaluate the risks of mini golf before playing.
This just about ends the discussion because it portrays exactly what I was looking for. People have a choice of drinking tap water and are not forced to drink from the tap. People have choices about eating ice cream or not, and even who to buy ice cream from or make their own. People have a choice about playing miniature golf or not, driving a car, choosing an employer, eating potentially risky foods like wild mushrooms, who they marry, whether or not they will own a dog or a cat or both. Either people are free to be educated and have a choice, or they are not. It is impossible to believe in a mixed mode without being extremely delusion or simply a liar.
If you believe in freedom for you at the expense of others,
For posterity, the real life situation becomes hypothetical due to the pervert withe a phone and the bus. The part about a person removing panty hose for appearance is real for more than one woman I know. I have also known some freaky people that just like to wear no undergarments. I still perceive A as wrong for them, because they only flashed people they knew and wanted attention from.
At first read I vehemently disagreed with this, but after contemplation I'm almost on the fence but will need some convincing. Exceptions don't make the rule, but I have a very easy target which is not that big of an exception. This hypothetical is based on one of many true life experiences for people I know.
Hypothetically lets say you are a woman standing on the bus because there is no room to sit. You are heading to the interview of your life and want to look your best. Unfortunately on your first bus your panty hose snagged on somebodies briefcase. Since you wanted to look your best you removed them at the closest public rest room to this bus. Those happened to be your under garment. Your skirt is down to your knees so you are not worried about flashing people accidentally, and you don't normally run around without undergarments. You are already uncomfortable with the situation, and then some guy shoves a phone between your legs and snaps a picture.
The questions this brings up by your A and B is "You are okay with this behavior?" followed by "What if you don't realize some pervert took the picture and the pervert, publishes it without a face?" and finally "What if you have some obvious markings which could lead people to know it was _your_ photo? Like a particular tattoo, birth mark, piercing, blemish, unique clothing styles, or mixture of any of those things."
You can either try to take the person to court, or simply know that there is a picture of your private parts posted that someone could potentially find. Either way you are at least discomforted by someone's behavior. Behavior that should not be normalized or overlooked, and is not simply a result of you doing something in public.
Isn't your A just a variant of the 'she was asking for it' excuse which we hear so often in other crimes of sexual/perverse nature? If not, I'm curious how you would separate the two. There are legitimate reasons for someone to be wearing no undergarments at the time a pervert decides to shove a phone under their skirt and take a picture. Every women is not out there 'asking for it' like your A states. Neither is every guy for that matter, and a guy in a kilt/skirt should have just as much expectation for people not to snap pictures of his private parts.
6' is not that tall, I have known plenty of people taller including my son that's 6'3 and they don't look down people's shirts. But hey, in MA you get to take photos in addition to peeking and even post them with less worry about being a criminal now. I doubt you will get long term dates by doing this and the rest of society will still think you are a pervert.
I agree with your points, but partial nudity by itself is perfectly ambiguous. The error is still with the judges who used this definition to claim it did not count as nudity.
All languages have ambiguity and it's nearly impossible to rule it out of legislature. In fact some of the best legislature in history is ambiguous intentionally (I'm sure you have read the founding documents for the USA). Language imperfections are why we are supposed to have judges with at least a shred of common sense. This one is not as bad as the judge accepting Clinton argument about the definition of "is", but it's up there.
OK, I'll bite. You referenced the CDC and NIH and I pointed out that their numbers totally reject your numbers. Now you're not happy that I'm using the CDC and NIH and failing to use your unnamed alternative knowledge sources that are, like, totally better than the CDC and NIH that you referenced earlier. OK. Let's do it.
Nope, I never mentioned the CDC you did. Go back and read the thread again. I never mentioned the NIH either. You demanded that any report regarding a vaccine harming someone had to come from the CDC or you would not believe it. You are completely fabricating claims which can be invalidated by simply scrolling up.
Should we just google 'gardasil vaccine injury' and see what we get?
First link is something pointing out that Gardasil is safe by any reasonable measure. Probably not a kosher source of alternative knowledge from your perspective, so I'll skip those. Moving on.
Got it! The only thing you can do in Google is read the top links, and those links are the only things that matter. Further, anything you can't learn in 5 minutes or less on Google is worthless information. Sarcasm aside, wholly shit I'd hate to see how bad you can slaughter a concordance or bibliography.
Finally, again you are simply arguing about statistics. The numbers, again, were never the subject of my posts in this thread. Why do you continually divert from the topic I presented? Either you claimed to be for people being able to choose and you lied, or you can not grasp that basic repeated theme.
Simple logic. "Medical procedures" have risk, risk should yield a choice. True or false? If you say "True" then we agree and there is nothing further to discuss on that point. If you say "false" then you lied early on.
More simple logic. Either education solves the problem or it does not. If you back your claim that it does then again we agree, if you simply nitpick who's source for numbers again you lied.
Sure, we could sit after that agreement and come up with numbers from all kinds of sources to build material to educate people with. Build a curriculum to give people the best education possible so that they make the best choice. From the very first post I stated very clearly that any numbers depend on what the vaccine is for because they vary drastically. Following that I touched on the common misinformation method of splitting risk and only advertising the number someone wants, instead of providing a real number which is a summation of all problems.
If there are deliberate adjustments to the facts, omission of facts, or fabricated information to sway people's freedom of choice then you don't care about education. You care about manipulation. As an advocate for the Socratic method in addition to his definition of Philosophy, I despise that Sophist line of thinking.
What we currently have is a manipulated system. It is nearly impossible to have a rational debate on vaccines, medications, or even climate change and pollution because of the mountains of misinformation being spread around from both camps (those that profit from other peoples misfortune and ignorance, and those so fed up with people taking advantage that they lie to attempt to force changes). Yeah yeah, lofty goals, but education and honesty are the keys to bettering society. Dishonesty and forced ignorance are major causes in societal collapse.
They said that it had to be "exposed in plain view at the time that the putative defendant secretly photographs her," at the time the guy took the picture which is ambiguous. Since "exposed in plain view of his camera lens" did not count, you can do the math as to how this ambiguity works. I agree my 2nd statement is wrong, but the interpretation of their definition is not.
You are correct and I was not, and I did a incorrect/horrible job of explaining myself in the 2nd statement. I still see this ruling as wrong for the same reason. They used a very ambiguous definition for partial nudity and the "in plain view" portion seems to be their merit for dismissal in this case. Their definition was the point of the the creepy uncle comment.
Their definition makes it legal to look down shirts as well as up skirt, because unless it's 'in plain view' it does not count. This is where it's a dangerous precedent as well, because you know... as long as you are not exposing all of something for everyone to see it's legal.
I refuse to answer an impossible hypothetical question. You can go back in history much further than the few examples I gave and still see that citizens having weapons is an important factor in balancing government powers.
Through recorded history this is a pretty consistent theme, going back to ancient Greece. Governments have soldiers and weapons, citizens get trampled on. It's rarely "instant" but a build up of power into a few hands over time. It gets to a point where people have to revolt every time. When a few thousand pitchforks start ambushing soldiers the balance of weapons starts to tilt the other way. This results in corrupt governments get replaced and corrupt people that built up power and control being pushed out of power or killed.
This is the balance that the founders were worried about and why the 2nd amendment was critical to the US Foundation. The founders wanted a faster easier method of removing corruption, and wanted the populace to have the ability to defend itself from oppression and tyranny. If this is some startling revelation or perceived false claim please go read a history book. I'll warn you that there are many many history books. I have been reading them for half a century and will never, ever be complete with the set.
Correct answer. This answers the question below of this. This ruling is not just idiocy, but sets a dangerous precedent. To see the idiocy these judges used to rule, this gem says it all.
"In sum, we interpret the phrase, 'a person who is... partially nude' in the same way that the defendant does, namely, to mean a person who is partially clothed but who has one or more of the private parts of body exposed in plain view at the time that the putative defendant secretly photographs her," the high court ruled.
In other words unless you have cloth covering every exposed inch of your body, you are 'partially nude' according to these fabulous judges.
This level of idiocy is special. Not only should these people be removed from the bench but they should be banned from owning cameras themselves. You know, those grand children are only partially nude so it's okay to take pictures of them. (I hate to call out a potential 'for the children' argument, but the ruling reminds me of the stereotypical perverted uncle. Yeah, my family has one too.).
Surely there's some middle road between "PhD dissertation" and "numbers I pulled out of thin air for a Slashdot post" isn't there?
I gave a method of finding alternative statistics which you choose to ignore. You will only believe what the CDC reports even when it can easily be shown by medical professionals that the numbers reported by the CDC are not accurate and don't cover the topic you are demanding CDC numbers for.
More hand waiving, and "la la lah I'm not listening".
Followed by more attempted ad hominem and riducule.
I'm not quite sure you actually stopped to think before posting. Ask the Jewish community in Germany how well they could fight back after losing all their guns. Ask the people Mao killed how it worked out for them, or ask the people Stalin killed, or Pol Pot, or Kim, etc...
Having "a" method is critical for freedom. Read what the founders of the US said about that exact issue.
Our population is not armed. While our government (especially the current one) have been known to do some shitty things, we're nowhere near the point of "man, I wish we had some weapons so we could fight back against the oppressors"
So you are content with your government doing shitty things and you are content to be a servant to them. In addition to a history book, I would recommend that you read "The Allegory of the Cave".
So now we change the whole topic from "Freedom to choose" to simply "Gardasil is good" and "I don't like your statistics. Got it. No, I'm not writing a new thesis or dissertation on a vaccine. My summary was not based on statistics, it was based on a freedom of choice and education which you falsely claimed to agree with. If I were writing a dissertation I would surely spend many months gathering different and distinct sources. Google what I gave and do research if you want, I don't care.
That said, stop lying and claiming to be fore something which you are obviously against.
Adding some clarity to my 2nd to the last paragraph since I realized that this was worded in a misleading way. The US has been "free" of wild polio for a couple decades. Other Western countries report similar success with the vaccine and sanitation. That said, insects and animals can carry the virus without our knowledge as can human waste though the virus would not replicate. Flies can carry the virus and contaminate humans even though the virus would not replicate in the fly. Organic material could hold the disease indefinitely under the right circumstances. This is an interesting read on that.
To further add clarity, I have repeatedly stated that I'm not anti any vaccine. I can surely seen benefits in some vaccines. Polio, Measles, Rubella, and Small Pox have all been what I consider to be successes for society.
What I have repeatedly stated is that people should understand the risks and rewards of a vaccine and be able to make an educated choice. Just like any other medical procedure, people should be able to have a choice of when and what to receive vaccines on. Companies making vaccines should be forced to provide real data on those benefits and risks instead of what we have today. What we have today is cover up, censorship, and smear campaigns so that people can't hold a rational dialogue on the subject.
Slashdot Mirror
Neither of those Bills are restricting to "Citizens of the United States". I'm at work so will have to dig where that specific language is used, but it is used very sparingly intentionally in the rare case that it's used (I believe 1 time).
If this was not referencing "People" in a general sense why would the founders have complained about England searching all their shit and demanding papers? England's ideology would have matched their ideology if that was the case, and England's ideology did not match hence we have our own country and constitution. Ben Franklin would have been expecting to be treated as a criminal in France instead of being treated as a free "Person". He did expect to be treated as a free person where ever he traveled as a diplomat.
The language used in the Constitution and Bill of Rights is very intentionally done. There are no inconsistencies in the original bill of rights meanings for various words (amendments later would obviously have slightly different language).
Your evidence is in the words themselves, but you can read the Federalist Papers in addition to notes by the founders, first congress, biographies, etc... The mistake most people make is trying to claim a word used in the Constitution means one thing in one area and another thing somewhere else, and it does not.
Which is not what was intended. "People" in the Bill of rights unless it says otherwise is a term for all people including non-citizens. Your particular interpretation is publicly claimed but historically incorrect.
Spying was known to the founders, and they expected that if a Spy was caught the Spy would be killed. That worked in both directions. While spying is certainly something we can see benefit in, the US Constitutional has laws protecting spies. The job of a spy is to break the law and ignore basic human rights.
Part of the escalation of the Government has to claim that "People" are not all "People" and they use that abomination of the term to grant themselves powers. This is why they kill "Combatant" age people and not "Civilian" when there is collateral damage in the Middle East. The language chosen both today and when our Constitution was written is done so very intentionally, pay attention to it!!
The problem is that you are ASSUMING, in the first place, that the person taking photographs of something that happens in public is committing a crime. On what basis do you make this judgment? Where would you draw the line? (And this is the whole problem.) You want to take pictures of a public building? Why not? That's not a crime, is it? Well, what if there are people on the front steps of the building? Is it suddenly a crime to take a picture?
Excellent question, I had to think about this one. This is not a person taking pictures of a public building, obviously, so we can scratch that viewpoint. I believe what we should be doing is asking "When is taking a picture illegal?".
I gave the pornographic photography example earlier. Even if a person is exposing themselves there are pornography rules that must be followed in every State. Adult photographers must have knowledge that the person is over 18 in all States, and a consent form proving age is required for just snapping and possessing a photo. These laws are intended to protect people from exploitation, so this is an easy target for "when is taking a picture illegal?" isn't it? These laws are not just when selling images, but when in possession of such images and materials.
We can go a bit further and find that persons are supposed to report crimes. The person with the camera in this case did not report the crime and held evidence to crime. Sure, it's a bit abstract for prosecuting but the judge could have allowed this method of prosecution because the case itself was a bit abstract.
But if you make the simple rule: "If you don't want it seen, don't show it" then everybody knows what the line is, and nobody has to try to read anybody else's mind to know whether their behavior is criminal or not. AND... you don't have anybody bullying anybody else over threats of saying they committed a crime when they didn't.
A person shoving a camera under someone's skirt/dress and taking photos is not the same thing as a person showing something voluntarily. I believe this is where our view of the situation is different. If the person taking pictures was sitting in a different seat and the pictures were from the front or back showing exposed parts we would not be having a debate. The people that brought up charges were not out flashing people.
And that's actually the way the law is in most places. In one state nearby, for instance, they tried to pass a law against "upskirt" photographs, but they couldn't because they could not find a way to define the law. It is legal to go naked in public if you want, but if you do -- because it's public -- you can be photographed. How can you square that with a law against taking photos up a skirt? Answer: you can't. Not without saying somebody is guilty of a crime based on nothing but someone else's word.
I don't know of any State where it is legal to be naked in public, even California has laws regarding public nudity (this is not related to nude beaches which are private and require membership, registration, and have rules of their own). In SF I have seen a person with tin foil over their private parts in order to be legal, and wearing nothing but the tin foil. Even that extreme is not what we are talking about here.
Legislatures having difficulty is not an issue of not being able to define a law, it's not agreeing on a certain aspect of the law such as blaming the victim. I'm not sure if you noticed but our Legislature has difficulty with many tasks, as do judges. As I said above, I think the issue with pornographic images would be the avenue of approach that most people would not complain about. If you can prove it was "you" in the picture you can bring up the complaint. If public nudity is shown in a publicly posted photo, and no age and consent form exists then there can be a case. I really don't think a jury would have difficulty making a decision if enough evidence exists. In other words, this should not be in a the judges hands alone. This is why a "Jury of Peers" is critical to our Justice system.
I need to correct a statement. I'm getting sleepy and missed this proof reading not once, but twice. A pedophile is arrested for having child porn even when there are no crimes. should (hopefully obviously) have been written as A pedophile is arrested for having child porn even when there are no victims.
I see your point, but still don't fully agree. I don't believe that the intent of the victim should be a consideration in a criminal case. This would be true even if the person that a crime was committed against, was committing a crime (thinking more along the lines of a drug dealer getting murdered or something very obvious). I don't think I agree with your opinion as a whole, but I still think your point has merits worth consideration as to a method of ruling that works in a slightly different way than we are accustomed to.
Given your examples, the person on the bus flashing people is committing a crime. Yes, even if the person is a hottie of the gender you happen to be attracted to. This would be indecent exposure and/or public nuisance at a minimum. Sure, we could go way out on the extreme and give the hypothetical that you 2 are the only ones on the bus.
If you are a moral human, you would not sit and take pictures even if this was the case. You may not turn away, or perhaps you would. Perhaps you would make a request to stop that behavior while in public, and it could even be done with progression in mind. "You know, I think you are really hot and if you want to do that in private I'm getting off at 1st street. Right now, we are in public and I would hate for someone as attractive as you go to jail or get a huge fine for public nudity."
If you are the person taking pictures, it's a different crime. This is what I mentioned previously. Even if the person flashing you is acting illegally, your actions are also illegal.
Reading this and the first post, I think this is still a slightly different version of "she was asking for it". I'm sure you could see it if you tried to separate the two sets of crimes.
But when it comes to social situations, how do you prove what was "intended"? It's one person's word against another.
In public this would be a very rare circumstance. The person in TFA took pictures on busy buses, not isolated with him and the victim. I'm not sure if there were witnesses or not in the original case, but I do remember reading his operating mode was using crowds as cover for his actions. As mentioned previously I believe his actions were criminal in two ways. A public witness should not be required since he not only invaded a persons privacy to take the picture, but he illegally posted pornographic material without the victims consent, without age verification, and without the victims knowledge. Those actions should make it very apparent that he did not have permission, and was not getting flashed by someone.
If it was one victim, I think I would give them more benefit of the doubt. This fact adds huge weight to the intent of acting criminally. This was numerous victims, and most of them didn't come forward. Just like with other sexual crimes there is a high percentage of people that feel embarrassed and won't come forward. That does not make a sexual predator not a sexual predator. Not to present a "for the children argument" but this is an easy one. A pedophile is arrested for having child porn even when there are no crimes. Adult sites are shut down and people are jailed if they do not have consent forms and age verification forms handy for every model and film they have. Not necessarily victimless crimes, but a victim does not need to be present for the actions to be illegal.
So it seems like we disagree, and that's okay. I still like your method of simplifying the laws down drastically. I'll have fun juggling that around in my head.
Thanks for the courteous responses, it's a pleasure to have dialogue with you. Even if we disagree in opinion the exchange is well articulated and respectful from you.
Those people are not speaking about things they never had, these people are speaking about what was lost. Things like family members, relatives, property/heirlooms/valuables/clothing, limbs, peace of mind, personal health, and many lives worth of work.
I notice guns aren't on that list. From an earlier post:
I believe that you are attempting to cherry pick for your opinion, which is unbecoming at best.
Ask the Jewish community in Germany how well they could fight back after losing all their guns. Ask the people Mao killed how it worked out for them, or ask the people Stalin killed, or Pol Pot, or Kim, etc...
Now correct me if I'm wrong here, but I don't believe they had guns in the first place, which was the point I was trying to make there.
A history book will show that you are wrong. Not just with recent tyrannies but follow that back to ancient Greece and you can see the same thing.
That said, the reason why they can't push a button and make a tyranny in the US like they have done in other places is because the US population _can_ fight back.
Doesn't mean it's not happening anyway, just more slowly and with more subtlety. Even if you've got guns throughout the whole process, that's not going to prevent it happening. By the time enough people finally decide it is time to fight back with the guns, it'll be too late.
I told you I don't argue the point it's been happening, I'm arguing that we have hope that other countries without an armed populace does not. That is not to imply that a revolt in the US would not be bloody, but less innocent people would be killed than in a place that also has to fight to find arms to fight with.
It works well enough in actual democracies without easy access to guns. For whatever faults our electoral system has (and they are certainly there), it is an actual functional democracy.
I doubt this is true very much. The US does not have a monopoly on having a few people with money push certain people into politics without the public noticing. Only certain people get advertisements, favorable spots on the 'news' channels, TV time, body guards so that they can visit locations, banners and flyers that are not defaced, etc... I can see why many people believe their democracy is better than the US. "The Allegory of the Cave" is a wonderful vehicle.
Well, that's a nice and comforting belief to have, but it won't happen. People will complain, there will be some protests, and maybe even the odd attack on government buildings, but the people as a whole will not fight back in any meaningful way. Maybe some time down the line when there's a lot more abuses going on, but "President gets third term" won't be the tipping point.
Well, people are already openly questioning a president acting like a dictator. It may take more, but it may take less. Both are speculating, I simply pointed out that people are slowly waking up. Lots can happen between now and the next election. For example the debt based economy that's been created may break before then, forcing a faster change.
Thanks for the response. Contemplating your answer a bit I think this does go to intent as you state (more on this below), but also at what point does it become a criminal action. It should be criminal for a person to peek over your shoulder or up your skirt in a public place. Publishing the picture would be a different crime (pornography/theft/defamation/etc..). So this case is not 1 charge, but two charges. The second charge I agree is complex, but the first should not be a concern to address.
You can't base laws on what people were thinking at the time. It just doesn't work.
Is this statement in error? The statement is not true in any modern law system (1700s' to present). The primary concern in Western / US Law is 'mens rea'. This means if the guy was 3' tall and had no choice but to see people's private parts they would get leeway that a person of normal height does not. Establishing "intent" is what the person was thinking at the time they committed a crime. You may have possibly written something you did not intend.
Oh Noes! A person made a correction to an error on the Internet! Sarcasm aside, are you not doing the same exact thing to this person whilst you mod them? Correcting them for correcting someone else' real mistake that is.
Hypocrisy is often difficult to see, so I'll ask you to lift your visor.
I've always thought that judges have to implement the law as it's written.
I believe this is where we disagree, as mentioned earlier and by the prosecutors in TFA the "intent" of the law is critical to a judges ruling.
Sure, we would most likely agree that murder laws can not be used to charge bribery unless both occurred (I surely agree). Obviously a judge can't take an arbitrary law to prosecute someone.
That said, no wording or law can be written without some ambiguity. That's not a limitation of "Law" but a limitation of language. It should not be a lawmakers job to write specific laws for very specific detailed things either. This line of thinking has gotten us to the point we are at today with law, and the system has become a mess which is impossible to manage and openly corrupt.
I'm not sure I agree with that primarily because in order to get such a picture, the person taking it must invade someone's privacy.
A judge's job is supposed to prosecute people for wrong doing and of course release innocent people based on the law. This case is absolutely wrong doing, and I have not seen anyone defending the guy's actions or claiming he was not criminal. The judges job is not to twist the intention of the law to let people off on technicalities. Remember this is not something lacking because of technological advance, it was a technicality based on the way the judges decided to interpret wording. And fine, if they can't use a law regarding lewd photography charge, why not a peeping tom law? A judge can direct prosecution in this way which would have still resulted in penalty, but obviously different punishment.
In this case, the judges did not perform their primary role of interpreting the law based on the intent of the law. Prosecutors in TFA agree with that assessment.
Says the person who invited me to conduct a seance to have conversations with people about how they coped with losing things they never had...
No seance is necessary and no sarcasm necessary. As stated several times read a book and learn from history. There have been plenty written on the subject and the opinions of the people are pretty clear. They should have fought back and spoken out against a growing tyranny. Those biographies are very unanimous on that part. Niemöller was not the only person to publish this thinking, he was one of countless people in history.
Those people are not speaking about things they never had, these people are speaking about what was lost. Things like family members, relatives, property/heirlooms/valuables/clothing, limbs, peace of mind, personal health, and many lives worth of work.
And that's working out so brilliantly for you, isn't it? The US government, as an overall institution, is horrendously corrupt. All other democracies do have their own corruption problems too, of course, but the US has it at a ridiculous level. Having guns has not helped you. The only real effect it can be said to have had on corruption, oppression and tyranny is that they're carried out more subtly, indirectly and insidiously, rather than the overt sort enough people know to fight against. Half the population knowing they have to fight and being determined to despite having improvised weapons is worth more than a small fringe with real weapons.
We agree on that point, no argument here. I'm one voice in 350 million people and have no control over others. Just like every other country with corruption, people get controlled by the media and propaganda. That said, the reason why they can't push a button and make a tyranny in the US like they have done in other places is because the US population _can_ fight back. As one voice I try and wake people up every day, it works but is a slow process. I don't get paid to wake people up and have to work and take care of my family too. It will get to a tipping point, and all of the harping the awake people have been doing is paying off. This is why the Government is trying to escalate removal of guns from people, gun registration, and making lists of 'who is who'.
Quite honestly it is a bizarre, and disturbing process to live through and watch unfold.
Hell no. I hate the shitty things my government does, and speak up about it whenever I'm able to. And it'll be a fucking miracle if they stay in power at the next election. But if I had a gun... the government would still be doing shitty things to people. Doing anything with the gun to try to make a difference would achieve nothing but having some hot lead delivered to my brain at high speed. (For the record, the shitty things my government are doing consist largely of fucking industrial relations and demonising refugees; nothing in the league of rounding up people they don't like and gassing them.)
This has not worked in so called democratic places without easy access to guns has it? I have no idea where are from and don't honestly need to know. There are too many examples to choose from where democracies are on paper only outside of the US. And before you say it, yes the US has become that same paper democracy but it's not always obvious to people living here. The difference I gave above still holds true. In Mexico the "President" can elect himself back into office as often as he wants and the people can't do anything about it. In the US if Obama did the same people would start hunting down politicians (or at least this is my belief).
If the US candidates for President are Clinton and Bush again, the game will be up because it's too obvious. People's suspicion have been growing for a long time, and that will make it very clear to those on the fence. I have hope that the NWO people are overconfident and make such a big mistake.
I never gave the CDC as a statistic source, I said the CDC claimed that the vaccine was safe. I should have clarified, perhaps, but so should you since you keep claiming to want statistics from the CDC and claiming that I provided statistics from the CDC. That quote is below and has no claim of statistics. If you did any research at all on what I gave you to search you will find numerous ad campaigns from various sources in addition to manufactures attempting to get legislation passed to force Gardasil vaccines on women. As mentioned previously there are numerous class action suits against the maker currently in action and many more already closed. The sad part is that most of those closures come with gag orders.
Here is that quote verbatim: I gave Gardasil as an example which for years was touted as completely safe by manufacturers, the CDC, and the US Department of Health. That statement is very obviously not a statistic but a statement regarding released opinions on a vaccine by certain sources (which are still searchable).
OK, so you spout factually questionable claims
I stated up front that the odds for becoming critically ill from a vaccine is dependent on the vaccine . You continue to omit this sentence while claiming I gave a wrong number. Later, you gave a single statistic for a single problem as the whole of the vaccine statistics. I used simplified numbers in that post to show how what you were doing was mathematically unsound for claiming a vaccine's rate of issues.
Care to claim that your numbers were fabricated and that you were presenting biased information? Yeah, I didn't think so.
Your first post in this thread that I responded to is here where I noted that your statistical claims in that post are unsupported nonsense. We're still holding firm there. If you're in favor of people making educated decisions based on real risk analysis, don't spread bad numbers. Spread good, well-supported numbers.
See above. Will you deny that lobbyists exist and pass bad laws protecting pharmaceutical companies? Will you deny that claims of problems with vaccines are blocked, misreported, and not reported even though medical professionals will tell you otherwise? Will you deny that people are bullied into silence by court proceedings so that the truth becomes buried at least a measurable percentage of the time? We know that cases happen and are settled without a public ruling, and we know that people are forced into silence in order to get treatment or receive damages. Those things can be proven, but the frequency is not provable.
Your first post in this thread that I responded to is here where I noted that your statistical claims in that post are unsupported nonsense
WRONG! You read what you wanted to read and ignored a key sentence! See the first item!
True, but so general as to be totally meaningless. Drinking water from your tap has risk. Eating ice cream has risk. Playing miniature golf has risk. That's why we use numbers to quantify that risk. I don't see people leaping into threads about mini golf pointing out that people should carefully evaluate the risks of mini golf before playing.
This just about ends the discussion because it portrays exactly what I was looking for. People have a choice of drinking tap water and are not forced to drink from the tap. People have choices about eating ice cream or not, and even who to buy ice cream from or make their own. People have a choice about playing miniature golf or not, driving a car, choosing an employer, eating potentially risky foods like wild mushrooms, who they marry, whether or not they will own a dog or a cat or both. Either people are free to be educated and have a choice, or they are not. It is impossible to believe in a mixed mode without being extremely delusion or simply a liar.
If you believe in freedom for you at the expense of others,
For posterity, the real life situation becomes hypothetical due to the pervert withe a phone and the bus. The part about a person removing panty hose for appearance is real for more than one woman I know. I have also known some freaky people that just like to wear no undergarments. I still perceive A as wrong for them, because they only flashed people they knew and wanted attention from.
At first read I vehemently disagreed with this, but after contemplation I'm almost on the fence but will need some convincing. Exceptions don't make the rule, but I have a very easy target which is not that big of an exception. This hypothetical is based on one of many true life experiences for people I know.
Hypothetically lets say you are a woman standing on the bus because there is no room to sit. You are heading to the interview of your life and want to look your best. Unfortunately on your first bus your panty hose snagged on somebodies briefcase. Since you wanted to look your best you removed them at the closest public rest room to this bus. Those happened to be your under garment. Your skirt is down to your knees so you are not worried about flashing people accidentally, and you don't normally run around without undergarments. You are already uncomfortable with the situation, and then some guy shoves a phone between your legs and snaps a picture.
The questions this brings up by your A and B is "You are okay with this behavior?" followed by "What if you don't realize some pervert took the picture and the pervert, publishes it without a face?" and finally "What if you have some obvious markings which could lead people to know it was _your_ photo? Like a particular tattoo, birth mark, piercing, blemish, unique clothing styles, or mixture of any of those things."
You can either try to take the person to court, or simply know that there is a picture of your private parts posted that someone could potentially find. Either way you are at least discomforted by someone's behavior. Behavior that should not be normalized or overlooked, and is not simply a result of you doing something in public.
Isn't your A just a variant of the 'she was asking for it' excuse which we hear so often in other crimes of sexual/perverse nature? If not, I'm curious how you would separate the two. There are legitimate reasons for someone to be wearing no undergarments at the time a pervert decides to shove a phone under their skirt and take a picture. Every women is not out there 'asking for it' like your A states. Neither is every guy for that matter, and a guy in a kilt/skirt should have just as much expectation for people not to snap pictures of his private parts.
6' is not that tall, I have known plenty of people taller including my son that's 6'3 and they don't look down people's shirts. But hey, in MA you get to take photos in addition to peeking and even post them with less worry about being a criminal now. I doubt you will get long term dates by doing this and the rest of society will still think you are a pervert.
I agree with your points, but partial nudity by itself is perfectly ambiguous. The error is still with the judges who used this definition to claim it did not count as nudity.
All languages have ambiguity and it's nearly impossible to rule it out of legislature. In fact some of the best legislature in history is ambiguous intentionally (I'm sure you have read the founding documents for the USA). Language imperfections are why we are supposed to have judges with at least a shred of common sense. This one is not as bad as the judge accepting Clinton argument about the definition of "is", but it's up there.
OK, I'll bite. You referenced the CDC and NIH and I pointed out that their numbers totally reject your numbers. Now you're not happy that I'm using the CDC and NIH and failing to use your unnamed alternative knowledge sources that are, like, totally better than the CDC and NIH that you referenced earlier. OK. Let's do it.
Nope, I never mentioned the CDC you did. Go back and read the thread again. I never mentioned the NIH either. You demanded that any report regarding a vaccine harming someone had to come from the CDC or you would not believe it. You are completely fabricating claims which can be invalidated by simply scrolling up.
Should we just google 'gardasil vaccine injury' and see what we get?
First link is something pointing out that Gardasil is safe by any reasonable measure. Probably not a kosher source of alternative knowledge from your perspective, so I'll skip those. Moving on.
Got it! The only thing you can do in Google is read the top links, and those links are the only things that matter. Further, anything you can't learn in 5 minutes or less on Google is worthless information. Sarcasm aside, wholly shit I'd hate to see how bad you can slaughter a concordance or bibliography.
Finally, again you are simply arguing about statistics. The numbers, again, were never the subject of my posts in this thread. Why do you continually divert from the topic I presented? Either you claimed to be for people being able to choose and you lied, or you can not grasp that basic repeated theme.
Simple logic. "Medical procedures" have risk, risk should yield a choice. True or false? If you say "True" then we agree and there is nothing further to discuss on that point. If you say "false" then you lied early on.
More simple logic. Either education solves the problem or it does not. If you back your claim that it does then again we agree, if you simply nitpick who's source for numbers again you lied.
Sure, we could sit after that agreement and come up with numbers from all kinds of sources to build material to educate people with. Build a curriculum to give people the best education possible so that they make the best choice. From the very first post I stated very clearly that any numbers depend on what the vaccine is for because they vary drastically. Following that I touched on the common misinformation method of splitting risk and only advertising the number someone wants, instead of providing a real number which is a summation of all problems.
If there are deliberate adjustments to the facts, omission of facts, or fabricated information to sway people's freedom of choice then you don't care about education. You care about manipulation. As an advocate for the Socratic method in addition to his definition of Philosophy, I despise that Sophist line of thinking.
What we currently have is a manipulated system. It is nearly impossible to have a rational debate on vaccines, medications, or even climate change and pollution because of the mountains of misinformation being spread around from both camps (those that profit from other peoples misfortune and ignorance, and those so fed up with people taking advantage that they lie to attempt to force changes). Yeah yeah, lofty goals, but education and honesty are the keys to bettering society. Dishonesty and forced ignorance are major causes in societal collapse.
They said that it had to be "exposed in plain view at the time that the putative defendant secretly photographs her," at the time the guy took the picture which is ambiguous. Since "exposed in plain view of his camera lens" did not count, you can do the math as to how this ambiguity works. I agree my 2nd statement is wrong, but the interpretation of their definition is not.
You are correct and I was not, and I did a incorrect/horrible job of explaining myself in the 2nd statement. I still see this ruling as wrong for the same reason. They used a very ambiguous definition for partial nudity and the "in plain view" portion seems to be their merit for dismissal in this case. Their definition was the point of the the creepy uncle comment.
Their definition makes it legal to look down shirts as well as up skirt, because unless it's 'in plain view' it does not count. This is where it's a dangerous precedent as well, because you know... as long as you are not exposing all of something for everyone to see it's legal.
I refuse to answer an impossible hypothetical question. You can go back in history much further than the few examples I gave and still see that citizens having weapons is an important factor in balancing government powers.
Through recorded history this is a pretty consistent theme, going back to ancient Greece. Governments have soldiers and weapons, citizens get trampled on. It's rarely "instant" but a build up of power into a few hands over time. It gets to a point where people have to revolt every time. When a few thousand pitchforks start ambushing soldiers the balance of weapons starts to tilt the other way. This results in corrupt governments get replaced and corrupt people that built up power and control being pushed out of power or killed.
This is the balance that the founders were worried about and why the 2nd amendment was critical to the US Foundation. The founders wanted a faster easier method of removing corruption, and wanted the populace to have the ability to defend itself from oppression and tyranny. If this is some startling revelation or perceived false claim please go read a history book. I'll warn you that there are many many history books. I have been reading them for half a century and will never, ever be complete with the set.
Correct answer. This answers the question below of this. This ruling is not just idiocy, but sets a dangerous precedent. To see the idiocy these judges used to rule, this gem says it all.
"In sum, we interpret the phrase, 'a person who is ... partially nude' in the same way that the defendant does, namely, to mean a person who is partially clothed but who has one or more of the private parts of body exposed in plain view at the time that the putative defendant secretly photographs her," the high court ruled.
In other words unless you have cloth covering every exposed inch of your body, you are 'partially nude' according to these fabulous judges.
This level of idiocy is special. Not only should these people be removed from the bench but they should be banned from owning cameras themselves. You know, those grand children are only partially nude so it's okay to take pictures of them. (I hate to call out a potential 'for the children' argument, but the ruling reminds me of the stereotypical perverted uncle. Yeah, my family has one too.).
Surely there's some middle road between "PhD dissertation" and "numbers I pulled out of thin air for a Slashdot post" isn't there?
I gave a method of finding alternative statistics which you choose to ignore. You will only believe what the CDC reports even when it can easily be shown by medical professionals that the numbers reported by the CDC are not accurate and don't cover the topic you are demanding CDC numbers for.
More hand waiving, and "la la lah I'm not listening".
Followed by more attempted ad hominem and riducule.
All to defend you being a liar...
I'm not quite sure you actually stopped to think before posting. Ask the Jewish community in Germany how well they could fight back after losing all their guns. Ask the people Mao killed how it worked out for them, or ask the people Stalin killed, or Pol Pot, or Kim, etc...
Having "a" method is critical for freedom. Read what the founders of the US said about that exact issue.
Our population is not armed. While our government (especially the current one) have been known to do some shitty things, we're nowhere near the point of "man, I wish we had some weapons so we could fight back against the oppressors"
So you are content with your government doing shitty things and you are content to be a servant to them. In addition to a history book, I would recommend that you read "The Allegory of the Cave".
So now we change the whole topic from "Freedom to choose" to simply "Gardasil is good" and "I don't like your statistics. Got it. No, I'm not writing a new thesis or dissertation on a vaccine. My summary was not based on statistics, it was based on a freedom of choice and education which you falsely claimed to agree with. If I were writing a dissertation I would surely spend many months gathering different and distinct sources. Google what I gave and do research if you want, I don't care.
That said, stop lying and claiming to be fore something which you are obviously against.
Adding some clarity to my 2nd to the last paragraph since I realized that this was worded in a misleading way. The US has been "free" of wild polio for a couple decades. Other Western countries report similar success with the vaccine and sanitation. That said, insects and animals can carry the virus without our knowledge as can human waste though the virus would not replicate. Flies can carry the virus and contaminate humans even though the virus would not replicate in the fly. Organic material could hold the disease indefinitely under the right circumstances. This is an interesting read on that.
To further add clarity, I have repeatedly stated that I'm not anti any vaccine. I can surely seen benefits in some vaccines. Polio, Measles, Rubella, and Small Pox have all been what I consider to be successes for society.
What I have repeatedly stated is that people should understand the risks and rewards of a vaccine and be able to make an educated choice. Just like any other medical procedure, people should be able to have a choice of when and what to receive vaccines on. Companies making vaccines should be forced to provide real data on those benefits and risks instead of what we have today. What we have today is cover up, censorship, and smear campaigns so that people can't hold a rational dialogue on the subject.