I'm sorry to hear that. I can see that this is obviously a very emotional issue for you, probably due to your own negative experiences. However, that makes you eminently unqualified to hold an objective discussion on the subject. As I said to the anon guy earlier, I expect our laws to be governed by logic and reason - bringing emotions into the mix just leads to irrational behavior and extremism.
While I can certainly feel a great deal of sympathy for you, I can't give you a free pass just because you were a victim. As long as you're running around advocating that we execute people whom you find morally objectionable, I'm going to have to point out that your views on this issue are no different than any religious extremist. If you hadn't been so strident and shrill in your initial comment perhaps I would have let it pass, but when you're essentially attempting to organize a lynching party AND a witch trial both aimed at a loosely defined category like "pedophile"... well, I gotta call you on that.
Unfortunately, as long as your emotional issues continue to cloud your judgment, I don't see how we could possibly have a productive discussion on the topic, so I'm going to bow out. I really hope you find a way to deal with your anger. Good luck.
flyn, none of what you wrote is actually a response. If you're not going to answer my questions or provide a reasonable argument to back up your views, why bother writing anything?
1. So your definition of "children" is anyone between the ages of zero and infinity.
2. Garbage response.
3. Not a strawman - he specifically stated that pedophilia is a "disease" which is perpetuated sexually.
4. Rape is illegal regardless of age, so it's you that's creating a strawman. "Violation of social contract" is a meaningless phrase, and "emotional damage" is too vague to be useful.
5. see answer 2.
I'm not advocating murder as the gp, but I certainly understand the emotion that leads to it.
Then you're an idiot, albeit not as much as him. Historically, societal responses to adult-child sexual relationships have varied between indifference, open encouragement, and hostile opposition. The definition of "child" has, likewise, varied by a huge factor (more than a decade), so it's not surprising that you've refused to give me your definition.
An emotional response is irrational by definition, and saying that you "understand" it (ie. accept as reasonable) is asinine considering the broad range of possible emotional responses. I'm not interested in some whiny cocsucker throwing a hissy-fit; if we're going to have laws banning any type of behavior then we better have a clear, logical reason supported by the best evidence available. Most of the legal code could be tossed out without doing any harm, and probably doing a great deal of good.
Nonsense. Private companies can get into orbit just fine - who do you think built the space shuttle? What they're trying to do is to get into orbit at a cost that's a fraction of what NASA spends. THAT is much harder.
Screwing children screw them up and cause an alarmingly higher rate of the disease self perpetuating.
Please provide:
1. The definition of "children" being used. 2. Your definition of "screw them up". 3. ANY credible citation which classifies pedophilia as a sexually-transmitted "disease". 4. Any study showing a correlation between increased teenage sexually activity and an increase in "screwed up" (refer to point 2) teenagers. 5. Any credible citation which corroborates any part of your argument.
Wassat? You're just talking out of your ass? Yeah, I kinda figured.
Don't tell me you're actually looking at the flash. It took all of 5 seconds to disable with Ad-Block. If you're using any kind of filtering software, just block "http://s.fsdn.com/aprilfools/*"
What can I say... your comments are a perfect demonstration of the fact that education is wasted on most people.
The US spends about 1 trillion dollars per year on education. The entire NASA budget clocks in at under 19 billion. If you scrapped NASA entirely, you could increase education spending by less than 2 percent. Now, it's clear where you stand on the issue, but I'd personally much rather use that money to push back the boundaries of human knowledge instead of giving it to the school system and praying for a miracle.
Buzzkill is right. You could at least have formulated a reasonable complaint, instead of being a whiny bitch. How much do you figure it costs to snap a few pictures using a satellite which is already in orbit of mars? Enough to buy lunch for 10 kids in your hypothetical "closing schools"?
You think the USA emerged just after defeating the native Americans and colonizing the new world? Or wasn't the whole reason of the declaration of independence that people felt they were living in a tyranny?
Ah, I see. By the same rationale, cleaning your house is pointless since, immediately after starting, the house remains dirty. Nice logic!
Also, have you ever looked to South America? It is also part of the new world, you know? Can't see any despotism in the history of South America?
You've apparently missed the scope of the discussion. He didn't ask whether a disparity in war-making ability can sometimes lead to despotism - he implied that it always does. Therefore, all I have to do is show one case where it hasn't. Which I've done.
Also, I might point out that South America today is less despotic than it was prior to the Spanish invasion. The natives weren't exactly paragons of freedom and democracy. Those poor bastards having their hearts cut out on sacrificial altars would probably agree with me.
I wish to congratulate you on being the first half-wit to respond. Even while typing that question I was debating whether to delete it, because I knew that some idiot would respond in the affirmative. I decided to leave it and see how long it took to receive such a response. The fact that it took a whole 2 hours and 32 minutes tells me that slashdot might actually be a decent place to hold intelligent discussions. On youtube it would have taken all of 5 seconds.
1. The suicide (this one, at least) wouldn't happen without actions of the defendants
2. The defendants had "guilty mind" (wanted to hurt the victim.)
Actually, this is the only part of your comment that makes me re-think the situation. You're right - intent and consequence do tend to be the major factors in how we judge guilt. However, that can also be taken to extremes, and it probably has no relevance on this case anyway. As a generic guide it may work, as long as it's tempered by reason.
This part, though:
Likely? How could anyone know that? For example, if only those people decided to stay on the roof another 3 minutes, the police helicopter would be there to pick them up.
is rather silly. If I point a gun at you, you have every right to kill me in turn, regardless of whether or not you can prove that I was going to pull the trigger. Even if it turns out that the weapon was unloaded, no court would convince you for defending yourself.
The legal system hinges on reasonable assumptions. It's reasonable to jump from a burning building in the hope of avoiding being burned alive, so it makes sense to charge the arsonist with murder regardless of the availability of police helicopters. A reasonable person would have known that the act of setting a building on fire would likely result in death, ergo, barring a finding of "innocent due to insanity", the perp should be held responsible.
On the other hand, it's not reasonable to kill yourself in order to avoid people saying mean things about you, so how can you hold the bullies responsible for that death? Now, yes, you're right, teenagers do tend to be in a hormonal state that is "1% physical and 99% mental", but I'm not sure that it changes anything. The majority of teenagers will not commit suicide due to bullying, so there's clearly something wrong with the few that do. Moreover, the accused in this case are also teenagers, so if you're going to use the 99-1 defense in favor of the victim, why wouldn't you apply the same standards when assessing the perps?
I simply don't see any justification for holding people responsible for the unreasonable actions of those whom they may have influenced. That's the same logic that opponents of video-games use every time some GTA-playing teenager opens fire in a cafeteria. It's absurd when they do it, and it's absurd here.
Alright, you want a better analogy? A murderer gets sent to prison for 20 years. 10 years later he kills a prison guard. Suddenly every weirdo with a guilt-complex is screaming that, clearly, he should only have received a 5 year sentence. Obviously it's not his fault that he killed the guard - it wouldn't have happened if the justice system hadn't been so draconian!
Yeah, the WW2 might not have happened in the way it did if the terms imposed on Germany after WW1 were slightly different. So what?
Parents have no legal duty to ensure that their kids don't kill other kids. They can't be charged, unless some major wrongdoing on their part can be shown (like incitement.) But kids themselves have legal duty to not kill others.
Sure, but since when do kids have the legal duty to make sure that others don't kill themselves?
I agree with the general point which you seem to be making - that people have to be held responsible for the direct results of their action. Where we differ is that you also seem to be indicating that people be held responsible for results which required the input of other individuals. That's where your initial analogy is flawed - people jumping from a burning building have no choice in the matter, and would likely have died if they remained in the building, whereas a suicide victim has plenty of other options, the majority of which would have resulted in her staying alive. In order for me to accept the idea that one person can be held responsible for the suicide of another, I'd have to reject the entire concept of free will. I'd have to treat human beings as nothing more than billiard-balls set in a predestined motion by the cue-stroke of the big bang. And if I accept such a premise, then it makes no sense to hold the perpetrators responsible either, since they have no more influence over their own actions than the girl who committed suicide had over hers.
Interesting point. Where does that chain of logic end? Should we charge the parents of the perpetrators with negligence, because they failed to instill proper value in their children?
I guess it depends on your definition of "won". It's wrong anyway - European conquerors definitely won the war against the indigenous populations of North America, yet you'd be hard-pressed to find people who would justify such actions. Even those of us who are happy with the results are still forced to admit that the actions of the various empires were quite immoral.
So no, it's not the winners who write the history books; it's done by the dominant societies of the era, which are influenced by the zeitgeist of their time. WW2 was seen as a moral war because the pictures sent home were of alpha males proudly erecting flags over battlefields, being greeted as heroes by the local populace, and rescuing emaciated prisoners from concentration camps. Vietnam was seen as an immoral war because the pictures sent back were of Vietnamese kids running from napalm bombs and grimy-looking bastards executing civilians. Realistically, WW2 caused far more suffering to the civilian populations of the nations we were liberating, but that doesn't matter - it's all about the pictures and the popular perception.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sorry to hear that. I can see that this is obviously a very emotional issue for you, probably due to your own negative experiences. However, that makes you eminently unqualified to hold an objective discussion on the subject. As I said to the anon guy earlier, I expect our laws to be governed by logic and reason - bringing emotions into the mix just leads to irrational behavior and extremism.
While I can certainly feel a great deal of sympathy for you, I can't give you a free pass just because you were a victim. As long as you're running around advocating that we execute people whom you find morally objectionable, I'm going to have to point out that your views on this issue are no different than any religious extremist. If you hadn't been so strident and shrill in your initial comment perhaps I would have let it pass, but when you're essentially attempting to organize a lynching party AND a witch trial both aimed at a loosely defined category like "pedophile" ... well, I gotta call you on that.
Unfortunately, as long as your emotional issues continue to cloud your judgment, I don't see how we could possibly have a productive discussion on the topic, so I'm going to bow out. I really hope you find a way to deal with your anger. Good luck.
flyn, none of what you wrote is actually a response. If you're not going to answer my questions or provide a reasonable argument to back up your views, why bother writing anything?
1. So your definition of "children" is anyone between the ages of zero and infinity.
2. Garbage response.
3. Not a strawman - he specifically stated that pedophilia is a "disease" which is perpetuated sexually.
4. Rape is illegal regardless of age, so it's you that's creating a strawman. "Violation of social contract" is a meaningless phrase, and "emotional damage" is too vague to be useful.
5. see answer 2.
I'm not advocating murder as the gp, but I certainly understand the emotion that leads to it.
Then you're an idiot, albeit not as much as him. Historically, societal responses to adult-child sexual relationships have varied between indifference, open encouragement, and hostile opposition. The definition of "child" has, likewise, varied by a huge factor (more than a decade), so it's not surprising that you've refused to give me your definition.
An emotional response is irrational by definition, and saying that you "understand" it (ie. accept as reasonable) is asinine considering the broad range of possible emotional responses. I'm not interested in some whiny cocsucker throwing a hissy-fit; if we're going to have laws banning any type of behavior then we better have a clear, logical reason supported by the best evidence available. Most of the legal code could be tossed out without doing any harm, and probably doing a great deal of good.
Nonsense. Private companies can get into orbit just fine - who do you think built the space shuttle? What they're trying to do is to get into orbit at a cost that's a fraction of what NASA spends. THAT is much harder.
Screwing children screw them up and cause an alarmingly higher rate of the disease self perpetuating.
Please provide:
1. The definition of "children" being used.
2. Your definition of "screw them up".
3. ANY credible citation which classifies pedophilia as a sexually-transmitted "disease".
4. Any study showing a correlation between increased teenage sexually activity and an increase in "screwed up" (refer to point 2) teenagers.
5. Any credible citation which corroborates any part of your argument.
Wassat? You're just talking out of your ass? Yeah, I kinda figured.
No, but at least they can let them out. Corpses stay in the ground.
Tell that to Jesus!
Don't tell me you're actually looking at the flash. It took all of 5 seconds to disable with Ad-Block. If you're using any kind of filtering software, just block "http://s.fsdn.com/aprilfools/*"
What can I say ... your comments are a perfect demonstration of the fact that education is wasted on most people.
The US spends about 1 trillion dollars per year on education. The entire NASA budget clocks in at under 19 billion. If you scrapped NASA entirely, you could increase education spending by less than 2 percent. Now, it's clear where you stand on the issue, but I'd personally much rather use that money to push back the boundaries of human knowledge instead of giving it to the school system and praying for a miracle.
I'll give you 20 to 1 odds on 90% of those "suggestions" being something along the lines of "Take pictures of Uranus!".
Buzzkill is right. You could at least have formulated a reasonable complaint, instead of being a whiny bitch. How much do you figure it costs to snap a few pictures using a satellite which is already in orbit of mars? Enough to buy lunch for 10 kids in your hypothetical "closing schools"?
You think the USA emerged just after defeating the native Americans and colonizing the new world? Or wasn't the whole reason of the declaration of independence that people felt they were living in a tyranny?
Ah, I see. By the same rationale, cleaning your house is pointless since, immediately after starting, the house remains dirty. Nice logic!
Also, have you ever looked to South America? It is also part of the new world, you know? Can't see any despotism in the history of South America?
You've apparently missed the scope of the discussion. He didn't ask whether a disparity in war-making ability can sometimes lead to despotism - he implied that it always does. Therefore, all I have to do is show one case where it hasn't. Which I've done.
Also, I might point out that South America today is less despotic than it was prior to the Spanish invasion. The natives weren't exactly paragons of freedom and democracy. Those poor bastards having their hearts cut out on sacrificial altars would probably agree with me.
Who's the idiot?
I'd say that's fairly evident.
I wouldn't say there's nothing wrong with Canada's laws. Taxes are way too high on beer and cigarettes.
That's part of the price of "free" health-care.
Please, do tell: which corporations control the Canadian government?
If you say "The HUdsons Bay Company", I'll beat you with a beaver tail.
Because our gov. cares more about the well being of corporations then its citizens.
Nonsense. You must not be living in the same Canada as me.
Would that be "Up yours, mate!" or "May I have some more, sir?"
You're thinking of Australia. Our response would be "Up yours, eh?"
Yes
I wish to congratulate you on being the first half-wit to respond. Even while typing that question I was debating whether to delete it, because I knew that some idiot would respond in the affirmative. I decided to leave it and see how long it took to receive such a response. The fact that it took a whole 2 hours and 32 minutes tells me that slashdot might actually be a decent place to hold intelligent discussions. On youtube it would have taken all of 5 seconds.
1. The suicide (this one, at least) wouldn't happen without actions of the defendants
2. The defendants had "guilty mind" (wanted to hurt the victim.)
Actually, this is the only part of your comment that makes me re-think the situation. You're right - intent and consequence do tend to be the major factors in how we judge guilt. However, that can also be taken to extremes, and it probably has no relevance on this case anyway. As a generic guide it may work, as long as it's tempered by reason.
This part, though:
Likely? How could anyone know that? For example, if only those people decided to stay on the roof another 3 minutes, the police helicopter would be there to pick them up.
is rather silly. If I point a gun at you, you have every right to kill me in turn, regardless of whether or not you can prove that I was going to pull the trigger. Even if it turns out that the weapon was unloaded, no court would convince you for defending yourself.
The legal system hinges on reasonable assumptions. It's reasonable to jump from a burning building in the hope of avoiding being burned alive, so it makes sense to charge the arsonist with murder regardless of the availability of police helicopters. A reasonable person would have known that the act of setting a building on fire would likely result in death, ergo, barring a finding of "innocent due to insanity", the perp should be held responsible.
On the other hand, it's not reasonable to kill yourself in order to avoid people saying mean things about you, so how can you hold the bullies responsible for that death? Now, yes, you're right, teenagers do tend to be in a hormonal state that is "1% physical and 99% mental", but I'm not sure that it changes anything. The majority of teenagers will not commit suicide due to bullying, so there's clearly something wrong with the few that do. Moreover, the accused in this case are also teenagers, so if you're going to use the 99-1 defense in favor of the victim, why wouldn't you apply the same standards when assessing the perps?
I simply don't see any justification for holding people responsible for the unreasonable actions of those whom they may have influenced. That's the same logic that opponents of video-games use every time some GTA-playing teenager opens fire in a cafeteria. It's absurd when they do it, and it's absurd here.
Alright, you want a better analogy? A murderer gets sent to prison for 20 years. 10 years later he kills a prison guard. Suddenly every weirdo with a guilt-complex is screaming that, clearly, he should only have received a 5 year sentence. Obviously it's not his fault that he killed the guard - it wouldn't have happened if the justice system hadn't been so draconian!
Yeah, the WW2 might not have happened in the way it did if the terms imposed on Germany after WW1 were slightly different. So what?
Doesn't that just lead to tyranny and despotism?
You tell me. Did the defeat of the "Native Americans" and the colonization of the "new world" lead to tyranny and despotism?
War is not always The Good Guys vs. the Bad Guys, right?
It's usually the bad guys versus the less-bad guys.
If one party could always shut the other down, no matter how serious the issue, what does that mean for human freedom?
If mankind could always defeat viruses, what would that mean for biological freedom?
You seem to think that the online world is a magical separate space where the things we write have absolutely no bearing on the rest of the world.
No, I seem to think that you can't punch someone in the head online. The IRC /me command notwithstanding.
Parents have no legal duty to ensure that their kids don't kill other kids. They can't be charged, unless some major wrongdoing on their part can be shown (like incitement.) But kids themselves have legal duty to not kill others.
Sure, but since when do kids have the legal duty to make sure that others don't kill themselves?
I agree with the general point which you seem to be making - that people have to be held responsible for the direct results of their action. Where we differ is that you also seem to be indicating that people be held responsible for results which required the input of other individuals. That's where your initial analogy is flawed - people jumping from a burning building have no choice in the matter, and would likely have died if they remained in the building, whereas a suicide victim has plenty of other options, the majority of which would have resulted in her staying alive. In order for me to accept the idea that one person can be held responsible for the suicide of another, I'd have to reject the entire concept of free will. I'd have to treat human beings as nothing more than billiard-balls set in a predestined motion by the cue-stroke of the big bang. And if I accept such a premise, then it makes no sense to hold the perpetrators responsible either, since they have no more influence over their own actions than the girl who committed suicide had over hers.
Interesting point. Where does that chain of logic end? Should we charge the parents of the perpetrators with negligence, because they failed to instill proper value in their children?
Awesome, thanks!
FALSE. Not sure where you got that idea from.
I guess it depends on your definition of "won". It's wrong anyway - European conquerors definitely won the war against the indigenous populations of North America, yet you'd be hard-pressed to find people who would justify such actions. Even those of us who are happy with the results are still forced to admit that the actions of the various empires were quite immoral.
So no, it's not the winners who write the history books; it's done by the dominant societies of the era, which are influenced by the zeitgeist of their time. WW2 was seen as a moral war because the pictures sent home were of alpha males proudly erecting flags over battlefields, being greeted as heroes by the local populace, and rescuing emaciated prisoners from concentration camps. Vietnam was seen as an immoral war because the pictures sent back were of Vietnamese kids running from napalm bombs and grimy-looking bastards executing civilians. Realistically, WW2 caused far more suffering to the civilian populations of the nations we were liberating, but that doesn't matter - it's all about the pictures and the popular perception.