Here's one way to get by without student loans: be a dental hygienist and save your money, then when you have enough, go to college. You'll need two years of community college and you'll need to take a licensing exam. You'll also need to put your hands in people's mouths eight hours a day, but you'll have gloves. There are other ways to bootstrap yourself; you just have to look.
I stand by my statement that taking out student loans is an incredibly risky thing to do. Yeah, you can do it and have everything work out. It can also fuck up your financial future more than if you took out a mortgage, bought a house, set it on fire (accidentally) without having insurance, maxed out all your credit cards, and then wrecked your Tesla which you took out a car note to buy (and didn't have collision coverage for). Is "never" too strong? I don't think so.
"Completely and totally financially secure" was meant in a relative sense. Even the 1% aren't completely and totally financially secure, as the French Revolution demonstrated. What I meant to say was done with your education, settled into your career, in a marriage you expect to last, that type of thing.
Finally, in modern times, unless you're a subsistence farmer, children are, objectively, a burden. For some people, the burden is worth it because they enjoy having children. Pets are also a burden. Maintaining a boat is a burden. Owning and maintaining a house is a burden. Most things in life are optional, and the optional bits often come with costs of time and money. Those costs we can refer to as burdens. Just because something is a burden doesn't mean you shouldn't do it. It just means you should do a cost/benefit analysis beforehand.
Fairly good list, but I'd take issue with a few things:
Never own a credit card. They are all scams and are far more likely to ruin your credit than help it.
I strongly disagree with this. Credit cards aren't scams. The problem is that people use them irresponsibly. The best way to treat credit cards is as charge cards: you pay the entire balance at the end of the month and only rarely and only for very good reason ever use the high-interest line of credit the cards give you. It's much better to use credit cards than debit cards as the credit cards offer stronger protection against liability for identity theft, and it's better to use credit cards than cash because cards are simply more convenient. As long as you pay off the balance every month, you don't get shafted. Now, if you don't have the self-control to do that, then, sure, don't get them, just like if you don't have the self-control not to get yourself shit-faced drunk every time you see a container of alcohol you shouldn't keep alcohol in your house. But, in both these cases, the first attempt at solving the problem should be gaining self-control rather than avoiding the underlying issue by treating the symptom.
The difference between a 401k and a Roth IRA, and why you need both and why paying off your house before retirement is bad.
Well, you missed Roth 401(k)s and traditional IRAs. Give those some love, too. It's usually only better to use Roth vehicles when you're young or, for whatever reason, not making much money, and, in that case, you should double down and use Roth everything. Regarding paying off your house, yes, sometimes it's best to hold onto a mortgage, but it's also sometimes not, so you need to learn how to do the calculations. Remember, any money paid past the minimum payment on a mortgage goes straight to the principal, and you'll never pay interest on that portion of the principal again. That's a pretty good reason to make extra payments, and the mortgage deduction is sometimes a red herring because you lose your entire standard deduction by taking "advantage" of it.
The last thing I'd like to mention is a really, really important thing I think you left out: never take out student loans. Again:
NEVER. TAKE. OUT. STUDENT. LOANS.
Taking out student loans is 50 times more risky than taking out a credit card. If you fuck yourself up with a credit card, you get to declare bankruptcy and erase the debt. If you fuck yourself up with a student loan, you're an indentured servant until you pay it back. It's that bad. I don't care how low the interest is. I don't care how much money you THINK you'll be making when you graduate. It's never worth the risk, and you should never do it, whoever you are and whatever your situation is. If you can't afford college, go to a community college, get an Associate's degree, and work in data entry or something until you can afford college. Taking Pell grants, or other grants, or scholarships is great, and you should try to do well in high school both to get some merit-based scholarships and to get AP credits that I know from personal experience can let you do a 4-year degree in 3 years. But never student loans. THOSE are scams.
Oh, and one last thing: don't fuck yourself up by having a kid until you are completely and totally financially secure. Just don't.
An argument like that, assuming it's not true, would be perjury and fraud. If mistaken licensing did occur, you can be fairly certain the company would publicize exactly what happened far and wide immediately after they found out the "rogue licensor" had acted. Saying nothing and then suing you and only telling you in court that the licensing was a mistake would not be looked on kindly.
You could represent yourself in a clear-cut case like this, where the files are obviously properly licensed. If you give them notice of the licensing in your counter-notice, and they still sue, they could get in trouble for filing a frivolous lawsuit, and you could recover damages.
You're wrong. Lawsuits cost money for anyone and companies don't "automatically" file them. There's such a thing as a frivolous lawsuit, and lawyers can get in trouble for filing them as well as the organizations paying the lawyers.
In such a clear-cut case as obviously GPL-licensed files, you could represent yourself and not pay a cent. You wouldn't lose: you'd get discovery from the Linux Foundation or whoever indicating the code was GPL-licensed. And you could probably retaliate and sue them for filing a frivolous lawsuit.
Evolutionary psychology is approximately the definition of soft science. And no I'm not going to make the argument here; look in my comment history if you care enough.
About 10% of the population has a reproductive strategy that will never succeed because they're doing it with the same gender. That alone should tell you that normal variation is going to outweigh differences in statistical averages. If that's not enough, consider that multiple times throughout history women have been able to join the military pretending to be men and not get found out for months or years.
For anyone reading this, I can confirm parent is full of shit. The Wikipedia article contains no references whatsoever to Roman court records verifying the existence of Jesus.
The TLDR was for you (or another reader), not for me. I DR.
Your comment is the first I've heard of Roman court records existing. That's neither in the Wikipedia article nor in anything I've come across. Where is your source for these records existing? If they exist and are genuine, the citation I gave would be intellectually dishonest for not dealing with them, and I'll have to revisit my conclusions.
Your argument that I should believe no one ever existed is a strawman; the evidence for Jesus's existence (assuming we don't have court records -- somebody should add that to the Wikipedia article; between us, you should do the honors) is about on par with other legendary figures. I'm skeptical that Jesus, King Arthur, Odysseus, or Aeneus ever existed. Pilate, on the other hand, we have direct archeological evidence for, so there was some guy named Pilate who administered Judaea. There was also a guy named Julius Caesar who became dictator of Rome and was then assassinated by some senators. There's lots of people in history we can be 99.9% sure existed. Jesus of Nazareth isn't one of them.
And you should learn to look past appeals to authority and study the actual subjects of your interest. The giant flaming box at the top of the wiki page saying, "The neutrality of this article is disputed" should have been your first clue to dig a little deeper:
TLDR version: We've got Tacitus incorrectly parroting the Christian myth saying that "Christus" was crucified. We know he was just parroting what Christians told him or the authorities, and did not actually verify the tale, because "Christus" was not a correct name for Jesus, so the Roman archives wouldn't have his crucifixion recorded under that name, so he couldn't have verified the story. We also have an obviously inauthentic passage by Josephus. It may be forged, as THE ORIGINAL PROTESTANTS THOUGHT THE CATHOLICS DID, or it may be a mistakenly inserted marginal/interlinear note, which was a common form of transcription corruption.
And that's it. That's all that ties Jesus to history. To me it's not much better than nothing. And there are also positive arguments, not just negative ones, against Jesus's historicity, which I won't get into here. But Tacitus and the (inauthentic, but apologists argue only partially inauthentic) Josephus passage are just enough that, if you're an apologist, you can scrape together a fig leaf from it that other apologists might believe. I guess they have to. After all, their imaginary friend has to have been real, right?
Some feminists do sometimes make absurd arguments any accusation of rape should be believed, but the standard in any court is still reasonable doubt. Almost certainly, a smart woman trying to make a rape accusation against a long-time partner stick would admit to the prior relationship because attempting to deny it would destroy all her credibility.
Then, it would come down to he said / she said. You'd probably want to introduce evidence indicating why all of a sudden your girlfriend is claiming you raped her. Evidence of any mental disorders she had would probably be admissible. Details of her prior sexual history would likely be admissible (see why many actual rapes might be unreported?). If you cheated on her and she found out, you'd want to introduce evidence of that. If you recently broke up with her, you'd want to introduce evidence of that. Anything that might give her a motivation to make a false accusation against you to hurt you.
If she all of a sudden, with no motivation whatsoever, claimed you raped her, then you might be in trouble, because why the hell would she do that? On the other hand, you might not be, because why the hell would you rape someone you routinely had consensual sex with anyway? The answer is that rape's not really sexual, it's more extreme bullying / wanting to dominate someone. So you'd want character witnesses that you're a nice guy and that she's a vindictive asshole.
Either way, in a trial like that, both your names would likely be dragged through the mud in public. It would be a nightmare for both of you. And, since he said / she said usually isn't enough for "beyond reasonable doubt", she'd probably lose. This is the basis for the claim that many rapes go unreported. It's probably true. Why would a rational, self-interested person want to drag her own name through the mud to hurt someone else? The only reasons for doing something like that would be to be vindictive -- "I don't care if I get hurt too as long as he does!" -- and altruistic -- "I want to stop him from hurting anyone else." For most people, both of these motivations are better for driving actions of minor consequence than actions of major consequence.
If you've been going out a while, you'll have probably been in a restaurant together more than once.
Anything can be faked. Nothing is 100%. But your position is ridiculous. People used to get married by living together and telling other people they were married, and after a while the state would agree they were married even though there was no official record of it. Courts look at evidence to determine facts, and there would be evidence of a prior relationship if it existed. Claims that you faked all the evidence and all the witnesses were lying would be discounted unless there was evidence that was the case.
No proof that someone is your long-term girlfriend?
Restaurant receipts if you go Dutch and both pay by credit card. Phone records. Facebook relationship status. Instant messenger logs. And, most importantly, witnesses, because presumably you do stuff together with other people and hold yourselves out to be a couple, or at least TOLD YOUR FRIENDS you were dating someone, and the girl's name.
Think about it. With any kind of normal romantic relationship, you could prove you're going out if you needed to.
If she weighs the same as a duck, then she's made of wood, and therefore?.... A WITCH!
Let's not do that, mmmkay? Someone does outrageous/illegal things at a conference, it's a matter for security, just like everywhere else. Political litmus tests for conference attendees is bound to end poorly.
We're not the Amish. We don't shun people. And here's how being Amish is working out for the Amish: http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/amish...
PS this was an analogy like your Scotsman one. I think Amish subculture and self-isolation is terribly unhealthy, but I have nothing against them as people. I've seen either Amish or Mennonites many times at Chicago Union Station and they seemed nice enough.
"His point" is either paranoid lunacy, or he engages or would like to engage in casual sex a lot with women who may have an impaired ability to consent at the time. It's paranoid lunacy to think your fiance or long-term girlfriend is all of a sudden going to turn around and say you raped her, unless you do that. It's also very unlikely she could make the rape charge stick if she tried, unless you did that (there would be defensive wounds if you actually did rape her). Still, if you think there's any chance she'll try, you might want to get another girlfriend.
The casual sex part is if you go around trolling bars for one-night stands, and you have sex with someone who could barely walk to the bed at the time, you might get charged with rape, because what you did was maybe rape and definitely predatory and wrong.
Every person you meet has been harassed, if not sexually then some other way.
Some people are just asshats and like to annoy other people by harassing them. If it's a woman wearing remotely revealing clothing, they'll say, "Nice rack!". If it's a person wearing glasses, it'll be, "Hey four-eyes!". For another person, it'll be, "Hey goof-face!".
Unlike most people, these people enjoy the push-back they get from being annoying. They take pleasure in the responses to their asshatery. My girlfriend had a male classmate in elementary school repeatedly steal her eraser to make her chase him around the school to get it back. He kept doing it, so, obviously, he liked to be chased around, at least by her. Maybe he liked her.
He probably grew up. Most of these people grow up eventually. Not all, but most.
People who rape women (or men) are vile criminals who need to be locked up. People who make annoying, inappropriate/offensive comments to annoy other people are annoying.
I notice all your links are to the UK. I thought the Chambers case was going to put a stop to that stuff in the UK. What bothers me most is that they even have people LOOKING online for stuff to prosecute. I'm pretty sure the US doesn't have police officers going through Facebook and Twitter trying to find offensive speech to bust people on.
Your links are disheartening. Perhaps the rest of Europe isn't that bad? In any case, the First Amendment is definitely one thing this country got very, very right.
Giving up moderation to respond to an AC. Oh, what a world.
Stare decisis, and precedent in general, is much more important in common law countries. Germany is a civil law country. I don't have a very good understanding of civil law countries (I'm from a common law country, and common law makes more intuitive sense to me), but, from what I do understand, precedent sorta kind maybe a little bit matters, but courts can basically do whatever the heck they want, basing their decisions purely on the text of the statutes. They are specifically not bound by the interpretations of that law that they or any other court used in the past. You can only really be sure that precedent is going to be followed when a high court has consistently ruled a certain way in a variety of cases over time. And even then, they can really still do whatever they want.
This isn't so ridiculous as it sounds, because even in common law countries like the US, the Supreme Court can overturn itself, and has (such as Plessy v. Ferguson). It's just considered very bad form for a court in the US to overturn itself, so it doesn't happen too much. In civil law countries, it's only really bad form to overturn a precedent if the court has consistently followed that precedent in the recent past, so a ruling in a single case doesn't matter so much.
Regarding Mexico, you're making my point: even our developing southern neighbor, which has some pretty serious problems, has managed to move past the death penalty.
Regarding Europe, I said "Western Europe", which may have an impact on some of this stuff. I count three authoritarian regimes in Western Europe: Francisco Franco in Spain, Nazi Germany and its client states (such as Vichy France, which may be your fourth if you're counting it separately), and the German Democratic Republic. I'm curious exactly how you got to four. In any case, I was talking about Western Europe in its current political configuration -- all democracies -- so this historical discussion isn't really relevant.
I Googled Trifigura and nothing relevant came up. Perhaps you can let me know what you're talking about there. Free speech is high in Western Europe, though admittedly not as high as in the US. This is one thing I do admire about the US. The main free speech issue in Western Europe I'm aware of is the anti-Holocaust denial laws, which is a far cry from "a man can be imprisoned for saying anything on twitter that offends someone else". But, like I said, I think Western Europe should emulate the US on free speech and not the other way around.
Words are defined by how they are used. So far in this thread we have ultranova, preaction, and linuxrocks123 agreeing that capital punishment can accurately be called murder, and we have LordLimecat disputing that usage of the word. Dictionaries sometimes take a while to catch up, but, looking at http://dictionary.reference.co... definition #5, it appears that this is clearly a correct usage of the word if you are asserting that capital punishment is inhuman or barbaric, which is exactly the way "murder" has been used in this thread. If you want to argue that capital punishment isn't murder because it is neither inhuman nor barbaric, you can do that, but you'll have to do better than "it's not murder because I say it's not" to convince many people.
1) murder refers to unlawful killing. The sovereign government of a state has the legal right to execute those who break its laws; this goes back to time immemorial.
This is a definitional issue akin to "killing babies". If you think the death penalty is morally wrong, then you think the state shouldn't have the right to do it, and then you think it's murder. You have a different definition. Good for you.
2) Justice will necessarily involve "retribution" if it is to fit the crime. Anything along the lines of "rehabilitation" or "deterrence" stops being justice, because the length and severity of the "cure" will depend on its efficiacy-- wholly removing the concept of proportionality from the equation. Thus, if you could show that a shoplifter were still not rehabilitated after 20 years in a mental ward, or that your punishment were not an effective deterrent, you could rightly claim that more time was required. Justice, on the other hand, requires that there be a relationship between the crime committed and the punishment meted out.
Strawman. No one is suggesting putting shoplifters in mental institutions for 20 years if they're not cured. If something that benign was that difficult to cure, a sane society would give the shoplifter a slap on the wrist, make a token effort at rehabilitation, and let the shoplifter go.
3) We do it because there is a concept of "right" and "wrong", and those who violate that deserve a punishment. That it tends to deter others is icing on the cake.
Not we. YOU believe in retributive justice. Most civilized countries have moved past that, as have I. The US, as usual, is a social backwater. Canada and Mexico have both gotten rid of the death penalty and won't extradite to us if the accused might face it. Western Europe has eliminated it. We're in the excellent companionship of Singapore and China and, if not for a Supreme Court ruling saying you actually had to have been involved in killing someone else to be eligible for state-sanctioned murder, probably would be killing people for drug trafficking just like they do. After all, what's a war on drugs without casualties?
Slashdot Mirror
Here's one way to get by without student loans: be a dental hygienist and save your money, then when you have enough, go to college. You'll need two years of community college and you'll need to take a licensing exam. You'll also need to put your hands in people's mouths eight hours a day, but you'll have gloves. There are other ways to bootstrap yourself; you just have to look.
http://www.ada.org/en/home-ada...
I stand by my statement that taking out student loans is an incredibly risky thing to do. Yeah, you can do it and have everything work out. It can also fuck up your financial future more than if you took out a mortgage, bought a house, set it on fire (accidentally) without having insurance, maxed out all your credit cards, and then wrecked your Tesla which you took out a car note to buy (and didn't have collision coverage for). Is "never" too strong? I don't think so.
"Completely and totally financially secure" was meant in a relative sense. Even the 1% aren't completely and totally financially secure, as the French Revolution demonstrated. What I meant to say was done with your education, settled into your career, in a marriage you expect to last, that type of thing.
Finally, in modern times, unless you're a subsistence farmer, children are, objectively, a burden. For some people, the burden is worth it because they enjoy having children. Pets are also a burden. Maintaining a boat is a burden. Owning and maintaining a house is a burden. Most things in life are optional, and the optional bits often come with costs of time and money. Those costs we can refer to as burdens. Just because something is a burden doesn't mean you shouldn't do it. It just means you should do a cost/benefit analysis beforehand.
Oh, and, yeah, cars suck. You're right on that.
Never own a credit card. They are all scams and are far more likely to ruin your credit than help it.
I strongly disagree with this. Credit cards aren't scams. The problem is that people use them irresponsibly. The best way to treat credit cards is as charge cards: you pay the entire balance at the end of the month and only rarely and only for very good reason ever use the high-interest line of credit the cards give you. It's much better to use credit cards than debit cards as the credit cards offer stronger protection against liability for identity theft, and it's better to use credit cards than cash because cards are simply more convenient. As long as you pay off the balance every month, you don't get shafted. Now, if you don't have the self-control to do that, then, sure, don't get them, just like if you don't have the self-control not to get yourself shit-faced drunk every time you see a container of alcohol you shouldn't keep alcohol in your house. But, in both these cases, the first attempt at solving the problem should be gaining self-control rather than avoiding the underlying issue by treating the symptom.
The difference between a 401k and a Roth IRA, and why you need both and why paying off your house before retirement is bad.
Well, you missed Roth 401(k)s and traditional IRAs. Give those some love, too. It's usually only better to use Roth vehicles when you're young or, for whatever reason, not making much money, and, in that case, you should double down and use Roth everything. Regarding paying off your house, yes, sometimes it's best to hold onto a mortgage, but it's also sometimes not, so you need to learn how to do the calculations. Remember, any money paid past the minimum payment on a mortgage goes straight to the principal, and you'll never pay interest on that portion of the principal again. That's a pretty good reason to make extra payments, and the mortgage deduction is sometimes a red herring because you lose your entire standard deduction by taking "advantage" of it.
The last thing I'd like to mention is a really, really important thing I think you left out: never take out student loans. Again:
NEVER. TAKE. OUT. STUDENT. LOANS.
Taking out student loans is 50 times more risky than taking out a credit card. If you fuck yourself up with a credit card, you get to declare bankruptcy and erase the debt. If you fuck yourself up with a student loan, you're an indentured servant until you pay it back. It's that bad. I don't care how low the interest is. I don't care how much money you THINK you'll be making when you graduate. It's never worth the risk, and you should never do it, whoever you are and whatever your situation is. If you can't afford college, go to a community college, get an Associate's degree, and work in data entry or something until you can afford college. Taking Pell grants, or other grants, or scholarships is great, and you should try to do well in high school both to get some merit-based scholarships and to get AP credits that I know from personal experience can let you do a 4-year degree in 3 years. But never student loans. THOSE are scams.
Oh, and one last thing: don't fuck yourself up by having a kid until you are completely and totally financially secure. Just don't.
---linuxrocks123
It's not just health: auto insurance is the same way, probably to reduce people driving uninsured. Look up "assigned risk pools".
An argument like that, assuming it's not true, would be perjury and fraud. If mistaken licensing did occur, you can be fairly certain the company would publicize exactly what happened far and wide immediately after they found out the "rogue licensor" had acted. Saying nothing and then suing you and only telling you in court that the licensing was a mistake would not be looked on kindly.
You could represent yourself in a clear-cut case like this, where the files are obviously properly licensed. If you give them notice of the licensing in your counter-notice, and they still sue, they could get in trouble for filing a frivolous lawsuit, and you could recover damages.
You're wrong. Lawsuits cost money for anyone and companies don't "automatically" file them. There's such a thing as a frivolous lawsuit, and lawyers can get in trouble for filing them as well as the organizations paying the lawyers.
In such a clear-cut case as obviously GPL-licensed files, you could represent yourself and not pay a cent. You wouldn't lose: you'd get discovery from the Linux Foundation or whoever indicating the code was GPL-licensed. And you could probably retaliate and sue them for filing a frivolous lawsuit.
Evolutionary psychology is approximately the definition of soft science. And no I'm not going to make the argument here; look in my comment history if you care enough.
About 10% of the population has a reproductive strategy that will never succeed because they're doing it with the same gender. That alone should tell you that normal variation is going to outweigh differences in statistical averages. If that's not enough, consider that multiple times throughout history women have been able to join the military pretending to be men and not get found out for months or years.
I have never once bored a hole through something by spinning rapidly while bashing my head against it.
Awww, MAN... You haven't LIVED!
For anyone reading this, I can confirm parent is full of shit. The Wikipedia article contains no references whatsoever to Roman court records verifying the existence of Jesus.
The TLDR was for you (or another reader), not for me. I DR.
Your comment is the first I've heard of Roman court records existing. That's neither in the Wikipedia article nor in anything I've come across. Where is your source for these records existing? If they exist and are genuine, the citation I gave would be intellectually dishonest for not dealing with them, and I'll have to revisit my conclusions.
Your argument that I should believe no one ever existed is a strawman; the evidence for Jesus's existence (assuming we don't have court records -- somebody should add that to the Wikipedia article; between us, you should do the honors) is about on par with other legendary figures. I'm skeptical that Jesus, King Arthur, Odysseus, or Aeneus ever existed. Pilate, on the other hand, we have direct archeological evidence for, so there was some guy named Pilate who administered Judaea. There was also a guy named Julius Caesar who became dictator of Rome and was then assassinated by some senators. There's lots of people in history we can be 99.9% sure existed. Jesus of Nazareth isn't one of them.
And you should learn to look past appeals to authority and study the actual subjects of your interest. The giant flaming box at the top of the wiki page saying, "The neutrality of this article is disputed" should have been your first clue to dig a little deeper:
http://rationalrevolution.net/...
TLDR version: We've got Tacitus incorrectly parroting the Christian myth saying that "Christus" was crucified. We know he was just parroting what Christians told him or the authorities, and did not actually verify the tale, because "Christus" was not a correct name for Jesus, so the Roman archives wouldn't have his crucifixion recorded under that name, so he couldn't have verified the story. We also have an obviously inauthentic passage by Josephus. It may be forged, as THE ORIGINAL PROTESTANTS THOUGHT THE CATHOLICS DID, or it may be a mistakenly inserted marginal/interlinear note, which was a common form of transcription corruption.
And that's it. That's all that ties Jesus to history. To me it's not much better than nothing. And there are also positive arguments, not just negative ones, against Jesus's historicity, which I won't get into here. But Tacitus and the (inauthentic, but apologists argue only partially inauthentic) Josephus passage are just enough that, if you're an apologist, you can scrape together a fig leaf from it that other apologists might believe. I guess they have to. After all, their imaginary friend has to have been real, right?
Some feminists do sometimes make absurd arguments any accusation of rape should be believed, but the standard in any court is still reasonable doubt. Almost certainly, a smart woman trying to make a rape accusation against a long-time partner stick would admit to the prior relationship because attempting to deny it would destroy all her credibility.
Then, it would come down to he said / she said. You'd probably want to introduce evidence indicating why all of a sudden your girlfriend is claiming you raped her. Evidence of any mental disorders she had would probably be admissible. Details of her prior sexual history would likely be admissible (see why many actual rapes might be unreported?). If you cheated on her and she found out, you'd want to introduce evidence of that. If you recently broke up with her, you'd want to introduce evidence of that. Anything that might give her a motivation to make a false accusation against you to hurt you.
If she all of a sudden, with no motivation whatsoever, claimed you raped her, then you might be in trouble, because why the hell would she do that? On the other hand, you might not be, because why the hell would you rape someone you routinely had consensual sex with anyway? The answer is that rape's not really sexual, it's more extreme bullying / wanting to dominate someone. So you'd want character witnesses that you're a nice guy and that she's a vindictive asshole.
Either way, in a trial like that, both your names would likely be dragged through the mud in public. It would be a nightmare for both of you. And, since he said / she said usually isn't enough for "beyond reasonable doubt", she'd probably lose. This is the basis for the claim that many rapes go unreported. It's probably true. Why would a rational, self-interested person want to drag her own name through the mud to hurt someone else? The only reasons for doing something like that would be to be vindictive -- "I don't care if I get hurt too as long as he does!" -- and altruistic -- "I want to stop him from hurting anyone else." For most people, both of these motivations are better for driving actions of minor consequence than actions of major consequence.
If you've been going out a while, you'll have probably been in a restaurant together more than once.
Anything can be faked. Nothing is 100%. But your position is ridiculous. People used to get married by living together and telling other people they were married, and after a while the state would agree they were married even though there was no official record of it. Courts look at evidence to determine facts, and there would be evidence of a prior relationship if it existed. Claims that you faked all the evidence and all the witnesses were lying would be discounted unless there was evidence that was the case.
No proof that someone is your long-term girlfriend?
Restaurant receipts if you go Dutch and both pay by credit card. Phone records. Facebook relationship status. Instant messenger logs. And, most importantly, witnesses, because presumably you do stuff together with other people and hold yourselves out to be a couple, or at least TOLD YOUR FRIENDS you were dating someone, and the girl's name.
Think about it. With any kind of normal romantic relationship, you could prove you're going out if you needed to.
If she weighs the same as a duck, then she's made of wood, and therefore? .... A WITCH!
Let's not do that, mmmkay? Someone does outrageous/illegal things at a conference, it's a matter for security, just like everywhere else. Political litmus tests for conference attendees is bound to end poorly.
We're not the Amish. We don't shun people. And here's how being Amish is working out for the Amish: http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/amish...
PS this was an analogy like your Scotsman one. I think Amish subculture and self-isolation is terribly unhealthy, but I have nothing against them as people. I've seen either Amish or Mennonites many times at Chicago Union Station and they seemed nice enough.
"His point" is either paranoid lunacy, or he engages or would like to engage in casual sex a lot with women who may have an impaired ability to consent at the time. It's paranoid lunacy to think your fiance or long-term girlfriend is all of a sudden going to turn around and say you raped her, unless you do that. It's also very unlikely she could make the rape charge stick if she tried, unless you did that (there would be defensive wounds if you actually did rape her). Still, if you think there's any chance she'll try, you might want to get another girlfriend.
The casual sex part is if you go around trolling bars for one-night stands, and you have sex with someone who could barely walk to the bed at the time, you might get charged with rape, because what you did was maybe rape and definitely predatory and wrong.
Every person you meet has been harassed, if not sexually then some other way.
Some people are just asshats and like to annoy other people by harassing them. If it's a woman wearing remotely revealing clothing, they'll say, "Nice rack!". If it's a person wearing glasses, it'll be, "Hey four-eyes!". For another person, it'll be, "Hey goof-face!".
Unlike most people, these people enjoy the push-back they get from being annoying. They take pleasure in the responses to their asshatery. My girlfriend had a male classmate in elementary school repeatedly steal her eraser to make her chase him around the school to get it back. He kept doing it, so, obviously, he liked to be chased around, at least by her. Maybe he liked her.
He probably grew up. Most of these people grow up eventually. Not all, but most.
People who rape women (or men) are vile criminals who need to be locked up. People who make annoying, inappropriate/offensive comments to annoy other people are annoying.
Never heard of this, and doubt it. Could you post a link?
I notice all your links are to the UK. I thought the Chambers case was going to put a stop to that stuff in the UK. What bothers me most is that they even have people LOOKING online for stuff to prosecute. I'm pretty sure the US doesn't have police officers going through Facebook and Twitter trying to find offensive speech to bust people on.
Your links are disheartening. Perhaps the rest of Europe isn't that bad? In any case, the First Amendment is definitely one thing this country got very, very right.
Here's an old, but good, opinion article on free speech in Europe: http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
Giving up moderation to respond to an AC. Oh, what a world.
Stare decisis, and precedent in general, is much more important in common law countries. Germany is a civil law country. I don't have a very good understanding of civil law countries (I'm from a common law country, and common law makes more intuitive sense to me), but, from what I do understand, precedent sorta kind maybe a little bit matters, but courts can basically do whatever the heck they want, basing their decisions purely on the text of the statutes. They are specifically not bound by the interpretations of that law that they or any other court used in the past. You can only really be sure that precedent is going to be followed when a high court has consistently ruled a certain way in a variety of cases over time. And even then, they can really still do whatever they want.
This isn't so ridiculous as it sounds, because even in common law countries like the US, the Supreme Court can overturn itself, and has (such as Plessy v. Ferguson). It's just considered very bad form for a court in the US to overturn itself, so it doesn't happen too much. In civil law countries, it's only really bad form to overturn a precedent if the court has consistently followed that precedent in the recent past, so a ruling in a single case doesn't matter so much.
Regarding Mexico, you're making my point: even our developing southern neighbor, which has some pretty serious problems, has managed to move past the death penalty.
Regarding Europe, I said "Western Europe", which may have an impact on some of this stuff. I count three authoritarian regimes in Western Europe: Francisco Franco in Spain, Nazi Germany and its client states (such as Vichy France, which may be your fourth if you're counting it separately), and the German Democratic Republic. I'm curious exactly how you got to four. In any case, I was talking about Western Europe in its current political configuration -- all democracies -- so this historical discussion isn't really relevant.
I Googled Trifigura and nothing relevant came up. Perhaps you can let me know what you're talking about there. Free speech is high in Western Europe, though admittedly not as high as in the US. This is one thing I do admire about the US. The main free speech issue in Western Europe I'm aware of is the anti-Holocaust denial laws, which is a far cry from "a man can be imprisoned for saying anything on twitter that offends someone else". But, like I said, I think Western Europe should emulate the US on free speech and not the other way around.
---linuxrocks123
Words are defined by how they are used. So far in this thread we have ultranova, preaction, and linuxrocks123 agreeing that capital punishment can accurately be called murder, and we have LordLimecat disputing that usage of the word. Dictionaries sometimes take a while to catch up, but, looking at http://dictionary.reference.co... definition #5, it appears that this is clearly a correct usage of the word if you are asserting that capital punishment is inhuman or barbaric, which is exactly the way "murder" has been used in this thread. If you want to argue that capital punishment isn't murder because it is neither inhuman nor barbaric, you can do that, but you'll have to do better than "it's not murder because I say it's not" to convince many people.
1) murder refers to unlawful killing. The sovereign government of a state has the legal right to execute those who break its laws; this goes back to time immemorial.
This is a definitional issue akin to "killing babies". If you think the death penalty is morally wrong, then you think the state shouldn't have the right to do it, and then you think it's murder. You have a different definition. Good for you.
2) Justice will necessarily involve "retribution" if it is to fit the crime. Anything along the lines of "rehabilitation" or "deterrence" stops being justice, because the length and severity of the "cure" will depend on its efficiacy-- wholly removing the concept of proportionality from the equation. Thus, if you could show that a shoplifter were still not rehabilitated after 20 years in a mental ward, or that your punishment were not an effective deterrent, you could rightly claim that more time was required. Justice, on the other hand, requires that there be a relationship between the crime committed and the punishment meted out.
Strawman. No one is suggesting putting shoplifters in mental institutions for 20 years if they're not cured. If something that benign was that difficult to cure, a sane society would give the shoplifter a slap on the wrist, make a token effort at rehabilitation, and let the shoplifter go.
3) We do it because there is a concept of "right" and "wrong", and those who violate that deserve a punishment. That it tends to deter others is icing on the cake.
Not we. YOU believe in retributive justice. Most civilized countries have moved past that, as have I. The US, as usual, is a social backwater. Canada and Mexico have both gotten rid of the death penalty and won't extradite to us if the accused might face it. Western Europe has eliminated it. We're in the excellent companionship of Singapore and China and, if not for a Supreme Court ruling saying you actually had to have been involved in killing someone else to be eligible for state-sanctioned murder, probably would be killing people for drug trafficking just like they do. After all, what's a war on drugs without casualties?
---linuxrocks123
What about Dish?