I'm a woman. I've also got a grandmother, a great grandmother and several other women in my family that have had tumors (both benign and malignant) in their breasts.
I also agree with the grandparent. This breast cancer awareness bullshit is just that; bullshit. It's pretty much been reduced to the level of a cheap marketing gimmick and a way to boost PR within and without certain businesses. It's disgusting.
That said, it's your body; whether you're male or female, it's your job and your responsibility to take care of it. If you honestly need reminders like these to use common sense and get annual checkups for whichever diseases you are at risk for, then you probably deserve whatever you get.
The ones that claim they can fix any medical problem are deluded kooks, but the rest of them are incredible and very good at what they do.
I went to one for a bad back one year. I was adjusted and he gave me an exercise routine to strengthen the muscles in my back. It's been so much better ever since, and the relief was almost immediate. I went from being almost unable to stand or walk to being able to stand up straight and walk without pain. And the funny part is my regular doctor is the one that told me to go see the chiropractor, because all pain meds would do is act as a temporary bandaid.
Are you the guy we've heard so much about? The one that posted a video of himself humping a chunk of flab with an orfice that vaguely resembled a vagina and got pissed when it got passed around?
Seriously, just let me know if I'm way off here...
It was routed through paypal because Lowtax wanted to give Something Awful merchandise to everyone that donated over 10 dollars.
This is far from the first fundraiser SA has run. They raised another 20k or so for body armor for soldiers in Iraq, and recently a bunch of SA goons raised over 6k in a few weeks and bought toys for sick children, which they delivered in person.
I understand your suspicion but come on, this is is SA, home of one of the most populated forums on the internet. We goons care.
Not always, apparently...When my SO flew to France some years ago to see his brother's wedding, he tried to bring me back a few interesting empty glass juice bottles on his carry-on luggage (I collect bottles). The guards confiscated them because they could be used as a "blunt weapon". He never got them back.
Either you're lucky or he was really unlucky. I really wanted those bottles too, damn it.
What if they decided this technology was good enough to replace an old-fashioned strip search in most or all cases? To me this seems like a very good alternative, especially if it is implimented in such a way.
Though I will admit my experience with security guards differs a great deal from yours. None of the security guards I've dealt with fit the old fat guy/highschool drop out stereotype, but were all polite, professional, and seemed to be very mature people that were good at their jobs. I have only ever flown between the airports in Portland Oregon and Burbank California, so perhaps that has something to do with it.
Judging by the picture, this doesn't strike me as being too terrible at all. As long as the people at the airport have more maturity than the average nerd on slashdot, well, no big deal.:)
Considering stores in my area have been selling "pre-worn" jeans and brand new jeans with holes in them right off the rack for years now, I think you're a little behind the times.:)
Hence why I pointed it out; I wasn't the one that used the term first, and in the context in which it was used it struck me as though they were condemning "intellectual property" (as an umbrella term) in one breath and approving of trademarks in another.
Oh well, not like I can edit the post and clarify myself a little better, but there you have it.
Why should I _have_ to keep my artwork private for fear of unscrupulous people taking it and slapping their own names on it? It has happened to many a respectable artist online (not that I'm respectable or anything) and indeed in real life as well. Artists hundreds of years ago created for the love of their craft without concern for these things, true, but back then they didn't have to deal with people having the ability to copy their artwork bit-by-bit with a mouseclick and displaying it elsewhere with another name on it.
That goes past the line of disrespectful or mere toe-stepping and right into the immorality you were so expounding before. Copyright is useful. Copyright has a place in today's world. Right now it's broken, but it should be fixed, not tossed out completely because a relative few bad people are abusing it.
Did you miss your lesson from RMS? "Trademark law" also falls under the umbrella of "Intellectual Property" along with copyrights and patents. Are you saying you _only_ find the idea of copyrights objectionable, whereas trademarks and patents are fine?
And no, when I buy a book, I am not merely buying the paper and ink it is printed with. I am, indirectly at least, paying the author of the story for the story that is told. The ink and paper may become my property, but the story itself most certainly isn't and I do not have the right (or the power to override my own set of morals) to massively reproduce and sell it. The concept of the story and the work of the author is what I use IP to refer to. And it would be a good term if people would stop either abusing and exploiting it to further their admittedly unethical ends or spitting out kneejerk vitriol whenever it is uttered in their presence.
And you know, I write, draw, and paint. My works of art are mine; not just the paper and graphite/paint they're made with, but the actual artwork. They are my property. I release most of them under the Free Art License, granted, and I love to see people using and changing my work, but releasing it as such is my right and at the end of the day the original work is still mine.
See, copyright CAN foster new growth and creativity. I wouldn't nearly be so willing to share all my work with people so freely if I knew they could rip me off with absoloutely no possibility for recourse. I'm sure this is true for many people.
And where do you draw the line with your thinking? Using your example, if I turn around and write your story down, put my own name on it and sell it, is that okay or moral? What about in the event of you publishing your story...What if I make a hundred copies of it and sell it on a street corner, making a huge profit that you'll never see a penny of? This extreme is no better than the RIAAs of the world exherting unilateral iron-fisted control over artists' creations. These examples are FAR different than people sharing an MP3, or even a people exchanging a story, and in my opinion it's a far greater offense and is what I think IP laws were originally created to put a stop to. There are degrees and you need to be aware of and acknowledge them or risk being labelled an uninformed idiot.
While it's true that IP laws are horrible right now and that unscrupulous people and corporations are taking a mean advantage of them, they are not, at their core, immoral or based on bad intentions. They are not completely useless and they are not beyond salvation. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, yanno?
I'm sure you can name the genus and species of every creature you shove into your mouth, keeping in mind the variety of rodents and insects you ingest with your fruit and vegetable products.
Unless you've actually tried rodent meat, you really have no place judging people for eating it. What would you do if a Hindu person popped in here and started berating Americans for eating beef and using cow products? At least in their case it's a religious issue.
You mention crossbows...This is slightly offtopic, but I am not sure why exactly crossbows (and in some areas composite bows, but what sane person hunts with one) are illegal in as many areas as they are. I can't imagine any danger element a crossbow would introduce that a gun wouldn't introduce as well. 'Course, a law against crossbows doesn't stop certain aquaintences of mine from going out and shooting squirrels for dinner with an 80 pound crossbow...(mm, squirrel stew! I am not joking.)
That said I agree with the notion behind this legislation but I can't say it doesn't worry me a bit. But I also can't understand what would possess a person to use a service like point-and-click deer hunting in the first place, so perhaps my judgement here is clouded. What's next, remote automated fishing (heh)? Perhaps the opportunity to literally shoot fish in a barrel.
Not sure what would bring you to either conclusion. It sounds like you're digging a bit and your second point doesn't make any sense to me at all, but perhaps I'm merely missing something.
Would you have prefered that I go into a detailed synopsis of my past relationships? "Probably" was likely an unnecessary qualifier in the context of this discussion, but there is a reason it is there, and it isn't because I've forgotten anyone. It's actually a lot simpler than that.
No point in arguing with an AC, though, I guess. Cheers.
Pedophilia is an actual mental illness, not a legal term, and an interest in someone that is relatively young but pubescent does not make someone a pedophile. Likewise, people that age are not "children" save by the legal definition of the word. They may not necessarily be mature, but age is never a guarantee of maturity. Some well into adulthood never "grow up". Should we say that whoever pursues a sexual relationship with one of these people is a pedophile as well? They are, after all, relatively immature, and surely they don't have the mental capacity to consent to much of anything.
I think it's ridiculous to call anyone in the situation of the girl that filed this lawsuit a victim. If he was in a position of power and used that power over her, that would have been wrong and she would have been a victim. If he'd raped, stalked, harassed or threatened her that would have been wrong and she would have been a victim. But as it stands, she is not a victim, and neither are many girls under the AOC that actively look for men much older than they are (or simply disregard age completely). It takes two to tango.
I am wondering what, exactly, puts you in the morally superior position to say the actions of two consenting people are disgusting, wrong, stupid, or show a lack of responsibility or respect when you know so little about the situation. I did not and have never acted my age. It was always natural, even in the eyes of my guardian (who, if this was so horribly wrong and sick as you say, would have prevented my partner's visits), that I took interest and made friendships with people older and much more mature and intelligent than people in my own age bracket.
Do you condemn relationships like this while turning a blind eye to the things that go on in the course of normal dating in high schools? Is a long-lasting relationship built on communication and respect (as we did not meet in person for quite some time) inferior to endless cycles of two-week flings and one-night stands based on physical lust simply because one of the partners is five years younger than the other? I question your logic, your ethics and your morals if this is the case.
Saying you don't like the prospect of people that age dating would have been fine. Saying you would have personally objected to it would have been fine. Saying you find such actions morally reprehensible would have been fine, too. The second you accused him and myself of lacking responsibility and respect for eachother is the second you crossed the line, though. Have a little more tact and common sense next time, please.
Perhaps if I looked or acted my age it would have been more odd. I've always been tall and I have always looked and acted much older than I actually am. Yes, I can hear you say, but don't most kids say that? This is true, and I may be speaking from complete ignorance, but I can say I have never acted like a high schooler. I graduated early. I started in on college before I turned 17. I never took an interest in social groups that consisted of anyone below the age of 20 (and even then I was shocked at the behavior of some college students around that age). I believe this sort of a situation is true for most geeks and I'm hardly unique in this respect.
One thing I can say is that I am much better off now than if I'd leapt into the dating ring and been with people my own age. I have been in a relationship with someone I respect and care about for many years now, and I wouldn't trade that for an abundance of more "normal" two-week flings if my life depended on it.
And I should say that, considering we never even met until much later on, sex was an incredibly trivial thing that neither of us had much interest in. When he began visiting, his visits were so short and sporadic that we would rather go out and do something fun than remain in the house. When I mentioned the AOC, I meant to give an impression of how it looked to most outsiders. We've even been stopped on the street by police officers that assumed, because we were in a relationship (this is a very small town), that we must be having sex. My mother had concerns about what would happen if someone in our area decided, for whatever reason, to make an accusation. So the fact that I was under the AOC in my state caused problems in this respect.
Which is why I will be eternally puzzled as to why many statutes very specifically state that ignorance or belief s/he was older is not a valid defense in the case of statutory rape.
It's not as if it's difficult for a jury to look at the defendant, listen to his/her story, look at the accusor, and decide whether or not it's feasible that they could have believed the accusor was of legal age.
ESPECIALLY in cases where they met in a fucking BAR or a club that requires ID to get in. A dozen witnesses can say "we saw her there and we saw her ID" and she can ADMIT IT and he still goes to jail, is forced to register as a sex offender FOR THE REST OF HIS LIFE and essentially lives the rest of his life with a huge shadow hanging over his head. His entire life is yanked out from underneath him and pissed on because of some immature little slut. I mean, OMGWTF?! America sucks blah blah blah dick.
"girls"? You speak as if there were more than one. Is there some part of the story here you're privy to that you wouldn't mind revealing to us? Because as I understand it, she was going through a difficult time, they spoke and became close online, and then planned to meet for sex long after she reached the legal age of consent in her area. The only dubious thing here is AOL's negligence in monitoring the activities of the people many are blindly entrusting the safety of their children to. The actual nature of their personal relationship seems, to me at least, to be inconsequential.
Having been in the same position as the "victim" here, I'm inclined to agree with your sentiment.
That is, I've dated older men online (years and years ago) when I was around that age. Indeed, I met my fiance when I was around 14 and he was about 19. He is probably the oldest person I've ever been involved with, but it was extremely awkward when we were dating for the first few years, especially when he turned 20 and I was still under the AOC in my state (and still in high school, though not for long).
It's unfair to call the younger one in this relationship a "victim" and especially unfair to call the older one a "pedophile" or even a sexual predator when all signs seem to point to the opposite; a consenting and apparently rather close relationship.
That said, AOL still dropped the ball here. At the very least, this will hopefully force them to tighten their belts a bit to prevent something truly tragic from taking place (if it hasn't already).
Slashdot Mirror
I'm a woman. I've also got a grandmother, a great grandmother and several other women in my family that have had tumors (both benign and malignant) in their breasts.
I also agree with the grandparent. This breast cancer awareness bullshit is just that; bullshit. It's pretty much been reduced to the level of a cheap marketing gimmick and a way to boost PR within and without certain businesses. It's disgusting.
That said, it's your body; whether you're male or female, it's your job and your responsibility to take care of it. If you honestly need reminders like these to use common sense and get annual checkups for whichever diseases you are at risk for, then you probably deserve whatever you get.
The ones that claim they can fix any medical problem are deluded kooks, but the rest of them are incredible and very good at what they do.
I went to one for a bad back one year. I was adjusted and he gave me an exercise routine to strengthen the muscles in my back. It's been so much better ever since, and the relief was almost immediate. I went from being almost unable to stand or walk to being able to stand up straight and walk without pain. And the funny part is my regular doctor is the one that told me to go see the chiropractor, because all pain meds would do is act as a temporary bandaid.
Give credit where credit is due.
Seriously, just let me know if I'm way off here...
This is far from the first fundraiser SA has run. They raised another 20k or so for body armor for soldiers in Iraq, and recently a bunch of SA goons raised over 6k in a few weeks and bought toys for sick children, which they delivered in person.
I understand your suspicion but come on, this is is SA, home of one of the most populated forums on the internet. We goons care.
I think it's a given that the "insensitive clod" part is implied. ;)
So what, botany nerds/geeks don't count?
Not always, apparently...When my SO flew to France some years ago to see his brother's wedding, he tried to bring me back a few interesting empty glass juice bottles on his carry-on luggage (I collect bottles). The guards confiscated them because they could be used as a "blunt weapon". He never got them back.
Either you're lucky or he was really unlucky. I really wanted those bottles too, damn it.
What if they decided this technology was good enough to replace an old-fashioned strip search in most or all cases? To me this seems like a very good alternative, especially if it is implimented in such a way.
Though I will admit my experience with security guards differs a great deal from yours. None of the security guards I've dealt with fit the old fat guy/highschool drop out stereotype, but were all polite, professional, and seemed to be very mature people that were good at their jobs. I have only ever flown between the airports in Portland Oregon and Burbank California, so perhaps that has something to do with it.
Judging by the picture, this doesn't strike me as being too terrible at all. As long as the people at the airport have more maturity than the average nerd on slashdot, well, no big deal. :)
Considering stores in my area have been selling "pre-worn" jeans and brand new jeans with holes in them right off the rack for years now, I think you're a little behind the times. :)
Eels? Omelette? What the hell kind of developments in shock sites have I been missing lately?
Nice logical fallacy you got there. Dazzle us with another one, Socrates.
Hence why I pointed it out; I wasn't the one that used the term first, and in the context in which it was used it struck me as though they were condemning "intellectual property" (as an umbrella term) in one breath and approving of trademarks in another.
Oh well, not like I can edit the post and clarify myself a little better, but there you have it.
Why should I _have_ to keep my artwork private for fear of unscrupulous people taking it and slapping their own names on it? It has happened to many a respectable artist online (not that I'm respectable or anything) and indeed in real life as well. Artists hundreds of years ago created for the love of their craft without concern for these things, true, but back then they didn't have to deal with people having the ability to copy their artwork bit-by-bit with a mouseclick and displaying it elsewhere with another name on it.
That goes past the line of disrespectful or mere toe-stepping and right into the immorality you were so expounding before. Copyright is useful. Copyright has a place in today's world. Right now it's broken, but it should be fixed, not tossed out completely because a relative few bad people are abusing it.
Did you miss your lesson from RMS? "Trademark law" also falls under the umbrella of "Intellectual Property" along with copyrights and patents. Are you saying you _only_ find the idea of copyrights objectionable, whereas trademarks and patents are fine?
And no, when I buy a book, I am not merely buying the paper and ink it is printed with. I am, indirectly at least, paying the author of the story for the story that is told. The ink and paper may become my property, but the story itself most certainly isn't and I do not have the right (or the power to override my own set of morals) to massively reproduce and sell it. The concept of the story and the work of the author is what I use IP to refer to. And it would be a good term if people would stop either abusing and exploiting it to further their admittedly unethical ends or spitting out kneejerk vitriol whenever it is uttered in their presence.
And you know, I write, draw, and paint. My works of art are mine; not just the paper and graphite/paint they're made with, but the actual artwork. They are my property. I release most of them under the Free Art License, granted, and I love to see people using and changing my work, but releasing it as such is my right and at the end of the day the original work is still mine.
See, copyright CAN foster new growth and creativity. I wouldn't nearly be so willing to share all my work with people so freely if I knew they could rip me off with absoloutely no possibility for recourse. I'm sure this is true for many people.
And where do you draw the line with your thinking? Using your example, if I turn around and write your story down, put my own name on it and sell it, is that okay or moral? What about in the event of you publishing your story...What if I make a hundred copies of it and sell it on a street corner, making a huge profit that you'll never see a penny of? This extreme is no better than the RIAAs of the world exherting unilateral iron-fisted control over artists' creations. These examples are FAR different than people sharing an MP3, or even a people exchanging a story, and in my opinion it's a far greater offense and is what I think IP laws were originally created to put a stop to. There are degrees and you need to be aware of and acknowledge them or risk being labelled an uninformed idiot.
While it's true that IP laws are horrible right now and that unscrupulous people and corporations are taking a mean advantage of them, they are not, at their core, immoral or based on bad intentions. They are not completely useless and they are not beyond salvation. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, yanno?
I'm sure you can name the genus and species of every creature you shove into your mouth, keeping in mind the variety of rodents and insects you ingest with your fruit and vegetable products.
Unless you've actually tried rodent meat, you really have no place judging people for eating it. What would you do if a Hindu person popped in here and started berating Americans for eating beef and using cow products? At least in their case it's a religious issue.
That was rather impressive.
You mention crossbows...This is slightly offtopic, but I am not sure why exactly crossbows (and in some areas composite bows, but what sane person hunts with one) are illegal in as many areas as they are. I can't imagine any danger element a crossbow would introduce that a gun wouldn't introduce as well. 'Course, a law against crossbows doesn't stop certain aquaintences of mine from going out and shooting squirrels for dinner with an 80 pound crossbow...(mm, squirrel stew! I am not joking.)
That said I agree with the notion behind this legislation but I can't say it doesn't worry me a bit. But I also can't understand what would possess a person to use a service like point-and-click deer hunting in the first place, so perhaps my judgement here is clouded. What's next, remote automated fishing (heh)? Perhaps the opportunity to literally shoot fish in a barrel.
Not sure what would bring you to either conclusion. It sounds like you're digging a bit and your second point doesn't make any sense to me at all, but perhaps I'm merely missing something. Would you have prefered that I go into a detailed synopsis of my past relationships? "Probably" was likely an unnecessary qualifier in the context of this discussion, but there is a reason it is there, and it isn't because I've forgotten anyone. It's actually a lot simpler than that. No point in arguing with an AC, though, I guess. Cheers.
Pedophilia is an actual mental illness, not a legal term, and an interest in someone that is relatively young but pubescent does not make someone a pedophile. Likewise, people that age are not "children" save by the legal definition of the word. They may not necessarily be mature, but age is never a guarantee of maturity. Some well into adulthood never "grow up". Should we say that whoever pursues a sexual relationship with one of these people is a pedophile as well? They are, after all, relatively immature, and surely they don't have the mental capacity to consent to much of anything.
I think it's ridiculous to call anyone in the situation of the girl that filed this lawsuit a victim. If he was in a position of power and used that power over her, that would have been wrong and she would have been a victim. If he'd raped, stalked, harassed or threatened her that would have been wrong and she would have been a victim. But as it stands, she is not a victim, and neither are many girls under the AOC that actively look for men much older than they are (or simply disregard age completely). It takes two to tango.
I am wondering what, exactly, puts you in the morally superior position to say the actions of two consenting people are disgusting, wrong, stupid, or show a lack of responsibility or respect when you know so little about the situation. I did not and have never acted my age. It was always natural, even in the eyes of my guardian (who, if this was so horribly wrong and sick as you say, would have prevented my partner's visits), that I took interest and made friendships with people older and much more mature and intelligent than people in my own age bracket.
Do you condemn relationships like this while turning a blind eye to the things that go on in the course of normal dating in high schools? Is a long-lasting relationship built on communication and respect (as we did not meet in person for quite some time) inferior to endless cycles of two-week flings and one-night stands based on physical lust simply because one of the partners is five years younger than the other? I question your logic, your ethics and your morals if this is the case.
Saying you don't like the prospect of people that age dating would have been fine. Saying you would have personally objected to it would have been fine. Saying you find such actions morally reprehensible would have been fine, too. The second you accused him and myself of lacking responsibility and respect for eachother is the second you crossed the line, though. Have a little more tact and common sense next time, please.
Perhaps if I looked or acted my age it would have been more odd. I've always been tall and I have always looked and acted much older than I actually am. Yes, I can hear you say, but don't most kids say that? This is true, and I may be speaking from complete ignorance, but I can say I have never acted like a high schooler. I graduated early. I started in on college before I turned 17. I never took an interest in social groups that consisted of anyone below the age of 20 (and even then I was shocked at the behavior of some college students around that age). I believe this sort of a situation is true for most geeks and I'm hardly unique in this respect.
One thing I can say is that I am much better off now than if I'd leapt into the dating ring and been with people my own age. I have been in a relationship with someone I respect and care about for many years now, and I wouldn't trade that for an abundance of more "normal" two-week flings if my life depended on it.
And I should say that, considering we never even met until much later on, sex was an incredibly trivial thing that neither of us had much interest in. When he began visiting, his visits were so short and sporadic that we would rather go out and do something fun than remain in the house. When I mentioned the AOC, I meant to give an impression of how it looked to most outsiders. We've even been stopped on the street by police officers that assumed, because we were in a relationship (this is a very small town), that we must be having sex. My mother had concerns about what would happen if someone in our area decided, for whatever reason, to make an accusation. So the fact that I was under the AOC in my state caused problems in this respect.
Which is why I will be eternally puzzled as to why many statutes very specifically state that ignorance or belief s/he was older is not a valid defense in the case of statutory rape.
It's not as if it's difficult for a jury to look at the defendant, listen to his/her story, look at the accusor, and decide whether or not it's feasible that they could have believed the accusor was of legal age.
ESPECIALLY in cases where they met in a fucking BAR or a club that requires ID to get in. A dozen witnesses can say "we saw her there and we saw her ID" and she can ADMIT IT and he still goes to jail, is forced to register as a sex offender FOR THE REST OF HIS LIFE and essentially lives the rest of his life with a huge shadow hanging over his head. His entire life is yanked out from underneath him and pissed on because of some immature little slut. I mean, OMGWTF?! America sucks blah blah blah dick.
(i am a very angry person)
"girls"? You speak as if there were more than one. Is there some part of the story here you're privy to that you wouldn't mind revealing to us? Because as I understand it, she was going through a difficult time, they spoke and became close online, and then planned to meet for sex long after she reached the legal age of consent in her area. The only dubious thing here is AOL's negligence in monitoring the activities of the people many are blindly entrusting the safety of their children to. The actual nature of their personal relationship seems, to me at least, to be inconsequential.
Having been in the same position as the "victim" here, I'm inclined to agree with your sentiment.
That is, I've dated older men online (years and years ago) when I was around that age. Indeed, I met my fiance when I was around 14 and he was about 19. He is probably the oldest person I've ever been involved with, but it was extremely awkward when we were dating for the first few years, especially when he turned 20 and I was still under the AOC in my state (and still in high school, though not for long).
It's unfair to call the younger one in this relationship a "victim" and especially unfair to call the older one a "pedophile" or even a sexual predator when all signs seem to point to the opposite; a consenting and apparently rather close relationship.
That said, AOL still dropped the ball here. At the very least, this will hopefully force them to tighten their belts a bit to prevent something truly tragic from taking place (if it hasn't already).