Discussion:
[OT] It Isn't Just Muslims
Add Reply
Quadibloc
2018-09-28 06:34:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Apparently there are other religious groups which harbor a large number of members who fail to take sexual assault against women seriously.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/9/27/17910016/brett-kavanaugh-christine-blasey-ford-white-evangelicals-poll-support

John Savard
Kevrob
2018-09-28 15:10:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Apparently there are other religious groups which harbor a large number of members who fail to take sexual assault against women seriously.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/9/27/17910016/brett-kavanaugh-christine-blasey-ford-white-evangelicals-poll-support
Alternate explanation: people are answering the survey question
w/o accepting the premise that Kavanaugh did what he is accused of.

Partisans answering surveys are like that.

If X did Y, then,..... followed by a question is an old tactic
in "push polling."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Push_poll

Kevin R
Cryptoengineer
2018-09-28 15:23:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Apparently there are other religious groups which harbor a large
number of members who fail to take sexual assault against women
seriously.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/9/27/17910016/brett-kavana
ugh-christine-blasey-ford-white-evangelicals-poll-support
At the time the data was gathered, Ford was the only accuser.

I don't like the man. I don't want him on the Court. Most of his stances
are antithetical to my own.

But before the later accusers came forward, I was having trouble with
that being the main weapon against him.

* They had to go back over 30 years to find something against him, and
they were looking hard. 30 years of unblemished record is a long time.

* The event occurred when he was a teenager. Teenagers do dumb things:
this is why we have a separate juvenile justice system; we acknowlege
that minors need to be judged differently than adults.

* Until the later accusers came forward, it seemed a singular event. Its
quite possible that he realized his mistake and vowed never to do it
again.

So there was a window there where, even assuming Ford was telling the
absolute truth (and I have no reason to doubt that), I couldn't see
the incident, by itself, as automatically disqualifying.

Since the later accusers came forward (there are now apparently four
total), my view changed, since they seemed to indicate a pattern of
repeated behavior.

pt
Quadibloc
2018-09-28 15:50:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Cryptoengineer
this is why we have a separate juvenile justice system; we acknowlege
that minors need to be judged differently than adults.
Yes, teenagers make mistakes.

But sexual assault isn't a "mistake". It's a *crime against humanity*.

So, whenever it occurs, the focus should be on effective deterrence - ensuring
that it will NEVER HAPPEN AGAIN, not on rehabilitating the offender.

It isn't clear to me why this is so hard to understand. It should be obvious,
giving the frequently devastating effects of sexual assault on its victims.

John Savard
Quadibloc
2018-09-28 22:58:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Quadi, what does the word "drunk" mean to you?
Voluntary consumption of alcohol should not be a mitigating factor in criminal
responsibility.

Although I can see the logic in a claim that young people might not be familiar
enough with alcohol and its affects to properly assess them. Given, however, a
legal regime which makes preventing sexual assault a priority, hopefully parents
will work harder to educate their children in this regard.

http://www.keranews.org/post/how-tarrant-county-and-community-failed-student-after-she-reported-rape

Why do things like that happen?

I suppose that some people will feel that, although it's too bad one woman's
life has been ruined, no useful purpose would be served by ruining the lives of
several other young people. After all, they're not "bad people", they just had
too much to drink, they were just too high-spirited... and if they're sent to
jail, that will end their prospects for the rest of their lives.

People who mock and threaten victims when they're sober *are* bad people. Let's
start with that.

Understandably, the parents of a child who has committed rape will try to defend
their child. This is biological instinct. However, those who are charged with
maintaining an orderly and functioning society have to be objective, and balance
all interests. And it is the victim and her parents that they should be
listening to.

Rape isn't something to tolerate. It's something to end. To wipe out. To
eliminate from the face of the Earth. Like terrorism.

John Savard
J. Clarke
2018-09-29 01:27:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 28 Sep 2018 15:58:10 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Quadi, what does the word "drunk" mean to you?
Voluntary consumption of alcohol should not be a mitigating factor in criminal
responsibility.
Although I can see the logic in a claim that young people might not be familiar
enough with alcohol and its affects to properly assess them. Given, however, a
legal regime which makes preventing sexual assault a priority, hopefully parents
will work harder to educate their children in this regard.
http://www.keranews.org/post/how-tarrant-county-and-community-failed-student-after-she-reported-rape
Why do things like that happen?
I suppose that some people will feel that, although it's too bad one woman's
life has been ruined, no useful purpose would be served by ruining the lives of
several other young people. After all, they're not "bad people", they just had
too much to drink, they were just too high-spirited... and if they're sent to
jail, that will end their prospects for the rest of their lives.
People who mock and threaten victims when they're sober *are* bad people. Let's
start with that.
Understandably, the parents of a child who has committed rape will try to defend
their child. This is biological instinct. However, those who are charged with
maintaining an orderly and functioning society have to be objective, and balance
all interests. And it is the victim and her parents that they should be
listening to.
Rape isn't something to tolerate. It's something to end. To wipe out. To
eliminate from the face of the Earth. Like terrorism.
Quadi, stick to the damned topic. We were talking about a specific
case in which specific testimony was provided under oath. Now you're
bringing in a different unrelated case.

Ford did _not_ go to the police, she did _not_ tell her parents, she
apparently did not tell her friends who were present at the time. So
bringing in a different case where someone did these things is
changing the subject.

The facts to which she has testified:

She attended a party with four boys and some unspecified number of
women, greater than or equal to two.

When she arrived "Brett and Mark" were "visibly drunk".

Her response was not to leave but to drink a beer and hang out.

She further testifies that we went upstairs, was pushed onto a bed,
and these boys attempted to do something but were too drunk to
successfuly accomplish it.

She then left.

Further, she stated that she did not want her parents to know that she
had been alone with drunk boys in a house with no adult supervision.

The full transcript can be found at
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/national/wp/2018/09/27/kavanaugh-hearing-transcript/?utm_term=.4e8c927d2dcb>

So, where does the responsibility for proper behavior lie, with the
people who were drunk and not having a problem with each others'
behavior, or with the person who walked into their gathering, was
sober, recognized that the others were drunk, had received parental
guidance to the effect that she should avoid such situations, and who
instead chose to participate?
Alan Baker
2018-09-29 03:02:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 28 Sep 2018 15:58:10 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Quadi, what does the word "drunk" mean to you?
Voluntary consumption of alcohol should not be a mitigating factor in criminal
responsibility.
Although I can see the logic in a claim that young people might not be familiar
enough with alcohol and its affects to properly assess them. Given, however, a
legal regime which makes preventing sexual assault a priority, hopefully parents
will work harder to educate their children in this regard.
http://www.keranews.org/post/how-tarrant-county-and-community-failed-student-after-she-reported-rape
Why do things like that happen?
I suppose that some people will feel that, although it's too bad one woman's
life has been ruined, no useful purpose would be served by ruining the lives of
several other young people. After all, they're not "bad people", they just had
too much to drink, they were just too high-spirited... and if they're sent to
jail, that will end their prospects for the rest of their lives.
People who mock and threaten victims when they're sober *are* bad people. Let's
start with that.
Understandably, the parents of a child who has committed rape will try to defend
their child. This is biological instinct. However, those who are charged with
maintaining an orderly and functioning society have to be objective, and balance
all interests. And it is the victim and her parents that they should be
listening to.
Rape isn't something to tolerate. It's something to end. To wipe out. To
eliminate from the face of the Earth. Like terrorism.
Quadi, stick to the damned topic. We were talking about a specific
case in which specific testimony was provided under oath. Now you're
bringing in a different unrelated case.
Ford did _not_ go to the police, she did _not_ tell her parents, she
apparently did not tell her friends who were present at the time. So
bringing in a different case where someone did these things is
changing the subject.
She attended a party with four boys and some unspecified number of
women, greater than or equal to two.
When she arrived "Brett and Mark" were "visibly drunk".
Her response was not to leave but to drink a beer and hang out.
She further testifies that we went upstairs, was pushed onto a bed,
and these boys attempted to do something but were too drunk to
successfuly accomplish it.
She then left.
Further, she stated that she did not want her parents to know that she
had been alone with drunk boys in a house with no adult supervision.
The full transcript can be found at
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/national/wp/2018/09/27/kavanaugh-hearing-transcript/?utm_term=.4e8c927d2dcb>
So, where does the responsibility for proper behavior lie, with the
people who were drunk and not having a problem with each others'
behavior, or with the person who walked into their gathering, was
sober, recognized that the others were drunk, had received parental
guidance to the effect that she should avoid such situations, and who
instead chose to participate?
The responsibility lies with anyone who attempts rape.

Period.

Full stop.

Being at a gathering and having a beer is not permission granting for
sexual assault.

You do get that, right?

Please tell me you understand that.
Quadibloc
2018-09-29 04:32:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Ford did _not_ go to the police, she did _not_ tell her parents, she
apparently did not tell her friends who were present at the time. So
bringing in a different case where someone did these things is
changing the subject.
Bringing in a case where going to the police *didn't work* might help to explain why many women in these situations don't go to the police.

John Savard
J. Clarke
2018-09-29 12:53:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 28 Sep 2018 21:32:03 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
Ford did _not_ go to the police, she did _not_ tell her parents, she
apparently did not tell her friends who were present at the time. So
bringing in a different case where someone did these things is
changing the subject.
Bringing in a case where going to the police *didn't work* might help to explain why many women in these situations don't go to the police.
She didn't "go to" _anybody_. Her words: "I did not want to tell my
parents that I, at age 15, was in a house without any parents present,
drinking beer with boys."

So it seems that she was more upset about disobeying her parents than
she was about the alleged rape attempt.

In the case you mention, which was 30 years later, the woman got drunk
and took other drugs at a party supervised by parents, became
sufficiently intoxicated that her behavior became offensive to others
present, was driven to a remote location by others who were also
intoxicated, and raped there, at least twice, possibly more times.
Afterwards she went to the police, who apparently did all the things
they were supposed to do, and then the grand jury system did not find
sufficient evidence to prosecute.

There were several people culpable there--the big fault IMO is that of
the parents supervising the party, who should have recognized that she
was drunk and had her driven home by someone who was not drunk rather
than letting her get in a truck with two drunken men.
Quadibloc
2018-09-29 13:04:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
and then the grand jury system did not find
sufficient evidence to prosecute.
Unfortunately, we don't have chronoviewers. Therefore, this situation will arise;
it doesn't say anything about what a just resolution would be.

John Savard
J. Clarke
2018-09-29 13:35:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 29 Sep 2018 06:04:57 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
and then the grand jury system did not find
sufficient evidence to prosecute.
Unfortunately, we don't have chronoviewers. Therefore, this situation will arise;
it doesn't say anything about what a just resolution would be.
In that particular case the solution is to fix the grand jury system,
which is being done in that locality.
Alan Baker
2018-09-29 19:09:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 28 Sep 2018 21:32:03 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
Ford did _not_ go to the police, she did _not_ tell her parents, she
apparently did not tell her friends who were present at the time. So
bringing in a different case where someone did these things is
changing the subject.
Bringing in a case where going to the police *didn't work* might help to explain why many women in these situations don't go to the police.
She didn't "go to" _anybody_. Her words: "I did not want to tell my
parents that I, at age 15, was in a house without any parents present,
drinking beer with boys."
So it seems that she was more upset about disobeying her parents than
she was about the alleged rape attempt.
And how does that in any way make those who ATTEMPTED TO RAPE HERE any
less culpable?
Robert Carnegie
2018-09-29 16:09:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
Ford did _not_ go to the police, she did _not_ tell her parents, she
apparently did not tell her friends who were present at the time. So
bringing in a different case where someone did these things is
changing the subject.
Bringing in a case where going to the police *didn't work* might help to explain why many women in these situations don't go to the police.
John Savard
Laura Bush killed some guy in high school.

Teddy Kennedy killed a woman, but if Wikipedia and my
arithmetic are correct, he was 37. I had it mentally
filed as "dumb teenager does something horrific,
but it's okay somehow."

In today's case I imagine that President Trump just needs
to pardon Judge Kavanaugh?
J. Clarke
2018-09-29 16:23:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 29 Sep 2018 09:09:39 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
Ford did _not_ go to the police, she did _not_ tell her parents, she
apparently did not tell her friends who were present at the time. So
bringing in a different case where someone did these things is
changing the subject.
Bringing in a case where going to the police *didn't work* might help to explain why many women in these situations don't go to the police.
John Savard
Laura Bush killed some guy in high school.
Teddy Kennedy killed a woman, but if Wikipedia and my
arithmetic are correct, he was 37. I had it mentally
filed as "dumb teenager does something horrific,
but it's okay somehow."
In today's case I imagine that President Trump just needs
to pardon Judge Kavanaugh?
??? He is not on trial for a crime. He is before the Congress
seeking approval for his appointment to the Supreme Court. The
President has no authority to force the Congress to rule in his favor,
so such a pardon would be of no relevance.
Quadibloc
2018-09-29 20:26:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Robert Carnegie
Laura Bush killed some guy in high school.
Good thing she never got to be President. Unless it was self-defence, since it
looks like a lot of women would *need* to kill some guys in high school in self-defence.
Post by Robert Carnegie
Teddy Kennedy killed a woman, but if Wikipedia and my
arithmetic are correct, he was 37. I had it mentally
filed as "dumb teenager does something horrific,
but it's okay somehow."
Chappaquiddick certainly isn't OK. And I didn't like his extreme left-wing
politics either. One could claim that he didn't actually kill Mary-Jo Kopechne,
he merely hesitated too long to save her life, but that's not a distinction I
care much about.

John Savard
Quadibloc
2018-09-29 20:31:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Robert Carnegie
Laura Bush killed some guy in high school.
Good thing she never got to be President. Unless it was self-defence, since it
looks like a lot of women would *need* to kill some guys in high school in self-defence.
Ah. It wasn't. She ran a stop sign, killing the innocent occupant of another
vehicle.

Well, I'm already on record for how I feel about that sort of thing. Had they
chopped her up for organ transplants, I would not have been particularly
upset.

John Savard
J. Clarke
2018-09-29 21:07:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 29 Sep 2018 13:31:46 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Robert Carnegie
Laura Bush killed some guy in high school.
Good thing she never got to be President. Unless it was self-defence, since it
looks like a lot of women would *need* to kill some guys in high school in self-defence.
Ah. It wasn't. She ran a stop sign, killing the innocent occupant of another
vehicle.
Well, I'm already on record for how I feel about that sort of thing. Had they
chopped her up for organ transplants, I would not have been particularly
upset.
We know you're big on Draconian punishments for the slightest
discourtesy.
Quadibloc
2018-09-29 21:39:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
We know you're big on Draconian punishments for the slightest
discourtesy.
I do want it clear that I'm not hypocritically just picking on Brett Kavanaugh.

John Savard
Kevrob
2018-09-30 00:34:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Robert Carnegie
Laura Bush killed some guy in high school.
Good thing she never got to be President. Unless it was self-defence, since it
looks like a lot of women would *need* to kill some guys in high school in self-defence.
The fatal traffic accident Laura Bush caused is something
any inexperienced driver, and a lot of experienced ones,
might have been involved in. See:

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/laura-bush-car-accident/
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Robert Carnegie
Teddy Kennedy killed a woman, but if Wikipedia and my
arithmetic are correct, he was 37. I had it mentally
filed as "dumb teenager does something horrific,
but it's okay somehow."
Chappaquiddick certainly isn't OK. And I didn't like his extreme left-wing
politics either. One could claim that he didn't actually kill Mary-Jo Kopechne,
he merely hesitated too long to save her life, but that's not a distinction I
care much about.
Kennedy might be given a pass on the accident, but holing up and
waiting 10 hours to report it is what anyone could see as a stain
on Teddy's reputation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chappaquiddick_incident

During the 1980 primary season, I used to tell people who
were canvassing for Teddy that their slogan should have been
"Sink or Swim with Kennedy!" Some of them were slow to get
the joke.

I was not a Reaganite. That was my 2nd presidential election,
and the first one where I voted Libertarian.

Kevin R
Quadibloc
2018-09-30 03:15:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Kevrob
The fatal traffic accident Laura Bush caused is something
any inexperienced driver, and a lot of experienced ones,
might have been involved in.
That might be.

I was referring to an earlier post of mine, about a famous science-fiction
short story - The Jigsaw Man, by Larry Niven.

I am on record as commenting on it as follows:

While I understand that the story was intended to make one feel sympathetic
to the protagonist, and horrified at the future society which it depicted, I
have to confess it failed to engage my emotions.

Running red lights, or otherwise committing moving violations in a motor
vehicle, places the lives of other people at risk. If the law, in a
democratic society with a free press and free elections, decrees that the
penalty for such acts is the death penalty, followed by involuntary organ
donation, that may be harsh - but it's unclear to me that it's violative of
people's fundamental rights.

Pedestrians, passengers, and responsible motorists don't want to be killed
and injured in automobile accidents caused by careless drivers. If they as
voters decide that they want to strongly deter careless driving, and also
recover the costs of careless driving from those responsible, rather than
leaving them with the victims, that is not unreasonable.

So, given that the protagonist was well aware there were strict laws against
improper driving, I can't really sympathize much with his predicament, nor
with his irresponsible action of destroying transplant organs that have
condemned innocent people to death.

Of course, when Laura Bush had her accident, we did not have a system in
place. And, for that matter, that she wasn't prosecuted under existing laws
may not be that unreasonable - it may not have been possible to prove that
she missed seeing the stop sign due to culpable negligence on her part, or
deliberately ignored it.

Of course, murder just makes one a common criminal. Sexual assault, in my
books, makes one a Nazi war criminal.

If the Democrats staged the whole thing, with a coached witness perjuring
herself while giving an Oscar-worthy performance, that would be one thing.
If it was somehow an error in memory, despite her neuroscience on the stand
being sound... although she really should have said "indelible _from_ the
hippocampus", as some coverage has noted, the hippocampus helps form
memories, but it doesn't store them... he would have been innocent too.

While I am not a consistent liberal politically - I was a hawkish Cold
Warrior during that time, and today I think the national-security challenges
of both Russia and China must be taken seriously - in this case, I think the
liberals have it right. The Republicans want to get their conservative
appointee on the Supreme Court before the midterms, and the ordeal of
Christine Blasey Ford is as nothing to them compared to that.

For the women of America to stand up and vote on the basis that the
Republican Party, virtually as a whole, has proven itself not to care for
women... is an appropriate response, and an appropriate price, for such
conduct.

This is not to say that I trust the Democratic Party to run America as a
one-party state. Like the Republicans, although not to nearly the same
degree, they've let the more extreme party faithful control their agenda and
select their Presidential candidates. If there's a structural weakness in
the American political system as it exists at present that is leading to
this, it needs to be corrected, so that instead both parties will do what is
rational for their electoral chances - gravitate towards the middle of the
road, to broadly appeal to as many Americans as possible.

I expect that after being duly chastened, the Republican party can repair
itself, and turn from being the party of Trump, or the party of Sarah Palin,
or the party of Richard Nixon... back to being the party of, say,
Eisenhower.

John Savard
J. Clarke
2018-09-30 04:43:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 29 Sep 2018 20:15:26 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Kevrob
The fatal traffic accident Laura Bush caused is something
any inexperienced driver, and a lot of experienced ones,
might have been involved in.
That might be.
I was referring to an earlier post of mine, about a famous science-fiction
short story - The Jigsaw Man, by Larry Niven.
While I understand that the story was intended to make one feel sympathetic
to the protagonist, and horrified at the future society which it depicted, I
have to confess it failed to engage my emotions.
Running red lights, or otherwise committing moving violations in a motor
vehicle, places the lives of other people at risk. If the law, in a
democratic society with a free press and free elections, decrees that the
penalty for such acts is the death penalty, followed by involuntary organ
donation, that may be harsh - but it's unclear to me that it's violative of
people's fundamental rights.
Lemme guess, you've never driven a car.
Post by Quadibloc
Pedestrians, passengers, and responsible motorists don't want to be killed
and injured in automobile accidents caused by careless drivers. If they as
voters decide that they want to strongly deter careless driving, and also
recover the costs of careless driving from those responsible, rather than
leaving them with the victims, that is not unreasonable.
So, given that the protagonist was well aware there were strict laws against
improper driving, I can't really sympathize much with his predicament, nor
with his irresponsible action of destroying transplant organs that have
condemned innocent people to death.
Of course, when Laura Bush had her accident, we did not have a system in
place. And, for that matter, that she wasn't prosecuted under existing laws
may not be that unreasonable - it may not have been possible to prove that
she missed seeing the stop sign due to culpable negligence on her part, or
deliberately ignored it.
Of course, murder just makes one a common criminal. Sexual assault, in my
books, makes one a Nazi war criminal.
If the Democrats staged the whole thing, with a coached witness perjuring
herself while giving an Oscar-worthy performance, that would be one thing.
If it was somehow an error in memory, despite her neuroscience on the stand
being sound... although she really should have said "indelible _from_ the
hippocampus", as some coverage has noted, the hippocampus helps form
memories, but it doesn't store them... he would have been innocent too.
While I am not a consistent liberal politically - I was a hawkish Cold
Warrior during that time, and today I think the national-security challenges
of both Russia and China must be taken seriously - in this case, I think the
liberals have it right. The Republicans want to get their conservative
appointee on the Supreme Court before the midterms, and the ordeal of
Christine Blasey Ford is as nothing to them compared to that.
For the women of America to stand up and vote on the basis that the
Republican Party, virtually as a whole, has proven itself not to care for
women... is an appropriate response, and an appropriate price, for such
conduct.
This is not to say that I trust the Democratic Party to run America as a
one-party state. Like the Republicans, although not to nearly the same
degree, they've let the more extreme party faithful control their agenda and
select their Presidential candidates. If there's a structural weakness in
the American political system as it exists at present that is leading to
this, it needs to be corrected, so that instead both parties will do what is
rational for their electoral chances - gravitate towards the middle of the
road, to broadly appeal to as many Americans as possible.
I expect that after being duly chastened, the Republican party can repair
itself, and turn from being the party of Trump, or the party of Sarah Palin,
or the party of Richard Nixon... back to being the party of, say,
Eisenhower.
John Savard
Dimensional Traveler
2018-09-30 05:03:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Sat, 29 Sep 2018 20:15:26 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Kevrob
The fatal traffic accident Laura Bush caused is something
any inexperienced driver, and a lot of experienced ones,
might have been involved in.
That might be.
I was referring to an earlier post of mine, about a famous science-fiction
short story - The Jigsaw Man, by Larry Niven.
While I understand that the story was intended to make one feel sympathetic
to the protagonist, and horrified at the future society which it depicted, I
have to confess it failed to engage my emotions.
Running red lights, or otherwise committing moving violations in a motor
vehicle, places the lives of other people at risk. If the law, in a
democratic society with a free press and free elections, decrees that the
penalty for such acts is the death penalty, followed by involuntary organ
donation, that may be harsh - but it's unclear to me that it's violative of
people's fundamental rights.
Lemme guess, you've never driven a car.
This is Quaddie you're talking to. He's never done anything that could
possibly involve contact with reality.
--
Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservation
instinct are running screaming.
Quadibloc
2018-09-30 15:02:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dimensional Traveler
This is Quaddie you're talking to. He's never done anything that could
possibly involve contact with reality.
Here's a reality for you:

If a human being were to die, we could never, ever bring him back.

Thus, if drivers need to be better trained and better supervised, so that
the private use of motor vehicles does not result in deaths, then that is
clearly what should be done.

If someone were to die, you could never bring him back. Therefore, you do
not take the risk of someone dying, because if you do, and someone dies,
then your liability would be infinite. Because justice demands that there be
no externalities in one's actions.

John Savard
J. Clarke
2018-09-30 15:31:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 30 Sep 2018 08:02:51 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Dimensional Traveler
This is Quaddie you're talking to. He's never done anything that could
possibly involve contact with reality.
If a human being were to die, we could never, ever bring him back.
Thus, if drivers need to be better trained and better supervised, so that
the private use of motor vehicles does not result in deaths, then that is
clearly what should be done.
Do you drive?
Post by Quadibloc
If someone were to die, you could never bring him back. Therefore, you do
not take the risk of someone dying, because if you do, and someone dies,
then your liability would be infinite. Because justice demands that there be
no externalities in one's actions.
Now you are asking for immortality.

Earth to Quadi, there is no _risk_ of someone dying. That is a
_certainty_. EVERYBODY dies. I am going to, you are going to,
everyone participating in this discussion is going to.

Now, if you want to talk about something that has some relation to
reality, get back to us.
Quadibloc
2018-09-30 15:52:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Earth to Quadi, there is no _risk_ of someone dying. That is a
_certainty_. EVERYBODY dies. I am going to, you are going to,
everyone participating in this discussion is going to.
That's true, but people can die earlier than they would normally without
interference, which is why there are laws against homicide.

This is also the reason why homicide, unlike rape, is legitimately treated
as merely an ordinary criminal offense.

John Savard
J. Clarke
2018-09-30 17:13:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 30 Sep 2018 08:52:58 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
Earth to Quadi, there is no _risk_ of someone dying. That is a
_certainty_. EVERYBODY dies. I am going to, you are going to,
everyone participating in this discussion is going to.
That's true, but people can die earlier than they would normally without
interference, which is why there are laws against homicide.
This is also the reason why homicide, unlike rape, is legitimately treated
as merely an ordinary criminal offense.
So since rape is also treated as an ordinary criminal offense, and you
seem to believe that it should be treated otherwise, how do you
believe that it should be treated?
Quadibloc
2018-09-30 17:22:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
So since rape is also treated as an ordinary criminal offense, and you
seem to believe that it should be treated otherwise, how do you
believe that it should be treated?
As a crime against humanity.

John Savard
Alan Baker
2018-09-30 17:25:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
So since rape is also treated as an ordinary criminal offense, and you
seem to believe that it should be treated otherwise, how do you
believe that it should be treated?
As a crime against humanity.
John Savard
If you're suggesting that rape is qualitatively or in any other way
worse than murder...

...you've really lost it.
Dimensional Traveler
2018-09-30 18:13:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
So since rape is also treated as an ordinary criminal offense, and you
seem to believe that it should be treated otherwise, how do you
believe that it should be treated?
As a crime against humanity.
John Savard
If you're suggesting that rape is qualitatively or in any other way
worse than murder...
...you've really lost it.
No, he's suggesting that a single rape is on par with the Third Reich's
Final Solution concentration camps. So any and all rapists should be
hung until dead.
--
Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservation
instinct are running screaming.
Quadibloc
2018-09-30 18:25:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dimensional Traveler
No, he's suggesting that a single rape is on par with the Third Reich's
Final Solution concentration camps.
Qualitatively, not quantitatively. It's in the same general category,
but the Holocaust was still much, much worse.

John Savard
J. Clarke
2018-09-30 18:38:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 30 Sep 2018 11:25:25 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Dimensional Traveler
No, he's suggesting that a single rape is on par with the Third Reich's
Final Solution concentration camps.
Qualitatively, not quantitatively. It's in the same general category,
but the Holocaust was still much, much worse.
OK, Quadi, define "rape". I want Quadi's opinion, not what the
statutes or the courts say, so don't anybody try to be helpful by
posting links to various definitions.
Quadibloc
2018-09-30 19:54:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
OK, Quadi, define "rape". I want Quadi's opinion, not what the
statutes or the courts say, so don't anybody try to be helpful by
posting links to various definitions.
Rape, in its most general sense, is when a man has sexual
intercourse with a woman without her full, freely-given, and
informed consent.

Thus, what is legally "statutory rape" may not necessarily fall
under that definition. Not that there's anything wrong with having
laws prohibiting such acts.

However, my definition is a bit broader than that of the law in any
jurisdiction I know of in one respect. It could treat bigamy as
rape in some cases.

From _The Codebreakers_ by David Kahn:

[Arvid Gerhard] Damm is one of cryptology's "characters". He was
originally a textile engineer. While engineering manager of a
cloth-making factory in Finland, he became enamored of a Hungarian
equestrienne in a travelling circus. Unable to overcome her virtue,
he had a chum dress up like a clergyman and "marry" them in a fake
ceremony in a chapel, thus achieving his goal.

This qualifies, in my books.

John Savard
J. Clarke
2018-09-30 21:41:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 30 Sep 2018 12:54:34 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
OK, Quadi, define "rape". I want Quadi's opinion, not what the
statutes or the courts say, so don't anybody try to be helpful by
posting links to various definitions.
Rape, in its most general sense, is when a man has sexual
intercourse with a woman without her full, freely-given, and
informed consent.
Thus, what is legally "statutory rape" may not necessarily fall
under that definition. Not that there's anything wrong with having
laws prohibiting such acts.
However, my definition is a bit broader than that of the law in any
jurisdiction I know of in one respect. It could treat bigamy as
rape in some cases.
[Arvid Gerhard] Damm is one of cryptology's "characters". He was
originally a textile engineer. While engineering manager of a
cloth-making factory in Finland, he became enamored of a Hungarian
equestrienne in a travelling circus. Unable to overcome her virtue,
he had a chum dress up like a clergyman and "marry" them in a fake
ceremony in a chapel, thus achieving his goal.
This qualifies, in my books.
That's a corner and rather extreme case, further, depending on the law
in that locality he might have just stuffed up his plans and actually
married her. Don't know if it was the law in Finland then but
according to the 1987 marriage law she can petition the government to
validate the marriage. If it decides to do so the guy is stuck.

However she really should have done a tiny bit of due diligence.
Quadibloc
2018-10-01 00:05:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
That's a corner and rather extreme case, further, depending on the law
in that locality he might have just stuffed up his plans and actually
married her.
Yes, that is the law in the United States. I have no idea what the
law in France was at the time, though.

John Savard
Kevrob
2018-10-01 17:45:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
That's a corner and rather extreme case, further, depending on the law
in that locality he might have just stuffed up his plans and actually
married her.
Yes, that is the law in the United States. I have no idea what the
law in France was at the time, though.
Arguably, is "rape by deception," but it isn't "forcible rape."
Fraud should be a crime, but it isn't strongarm robbery.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_by_deception

Kevin R
Alan Baker
2018-10-01 00:43:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
OK, Quadi, define "rape". I want Quadi's opinion, not what the
statutes or the courts say, so don't anybody try to be helpful by
posting links to various definitions.
Rape, in its most general sense, is when a man has sexual
intercourse with a woman without her full, freely-given, and
informed consent.
Thus, what is legally "statutory rape" may not necessarily fall
under that definition. Not that there's anything wrong with having
laws prohibiting such acts.
However, my definition is a bit broader than that of the law in any
jurisdiction I know of in one respect. It could treat bigamy as
rape in some cases.
So bigamy is "torture" according to you?
Post by Quadibloc
[Arvid Gerhard] Damm is one of cryptology's "characters". He was
originally a textile engineer. While engineering manager of a
cloth-making factory in Finland, he became enamored of a Hungarian
equestrienne in a travelling circus. Unable to overcome her virtue,
he had a chum dress up like a clergyman and "marry" them in a fake
ceremony in a chapel, thus achieving his goal.
This qualifies, in my books.
So he "tortured" the woman with this, did he?
Quadibloc
2018-10-01 01:00:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
So he "tortured" the woman with this, did he?
No; it meets the basic definition of rape, but of course the woman
didn't know what was happening at the time.

John Savard
Alan Baker
2018-10-01 01:22:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Alan Baker
So he "tortured" the woman with this, did he?
No; it meets the basic definition of rape, but of course the woman
didn't know what was happening at the time.
But you declared that rape was a "crime against humanity" because it
amounted to "torture".

Explain.
Quadibloc
2018-10-01 07:11:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
But you declared that rape was a "crime against humanity" because it
amounted to "torture".
Explain.
Usually, or often, does not equal always.

John Savard
Alan Baker
2018-10-01 23:35:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Alan Baker
But you declared that rape was a "crime against humanity" because it
amounted to "torture".
Explain.
Usually, or often, does not equal always.
John Savard
For it to be a "crime against humanity" it needs to equal always.

Sorry, but calling rape a "crime against humanity"—trying to make it
somehow worse than murder is 100% balonium.
Peter Trei
2018-10-01 14:52:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Alan Baker
So he "tortured" the woman with this, did he?
No; it meets the basic definition of rape, but of course the woman
didn't know what was happening at the time.
There is a crime called 'rape by deception' which usually involves very
dark bedrooms, and no talking.

pt
Peter Trei
2018-10-01 14:55:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
OK, Quadi, define "rape". I want Quadi's opinion, not what the
statutes or the courts say, so don't anybody try to be helpful by
posting links to various definitions.
Rape, in its most general sense, is when a man has sexual
intercourse with a woman without her full, freely-given, and
informed consent.
Thus, what is legally "statutory rape" may not necessarily fall
under that definition. Not that there's anything wrong with having
laws prohibiting such acts.
However, my definition is a bit broader than that of the law in any
jurisdiction I know of in one respect. It could treat bigamy as
rape in some cases.
It appears Quaddie thinks that only women can be raped, by men.

That's not 'a bit broader'. Its narrower than most legal definitions.

pt
Quadibloc
2018-10-01 15:52:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Trei
It appears Quaddie thinks that only women can be raped, by men.
Forced sodomy may have the same penalties as rape, but then it's
included in a 'sexual assault' statute.

John Savard
Peter Trei
2018-10-01 15:57:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Peter Trei
It appears Quaddie thinks that only women can be raped, by men.
Forced sodomy may have the same penalties as rape, but then it's
included in a 'sexual assault' statute.
...and you think women can't rape men?

pt
Quadibloc
2018-10-01 21:58:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Trei
...and you think women can't rape men?
It's possible, but it's such an uncommon bizarre corner case that it's hardly worth considering.

John Savard
Dimensional Traveler
2018-10-01 15:56:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
OK, Quadi, define "rape". I want Quadi's opinion, not what the
statutes or the courts say, so don't anybody try to be helpful by
posting links to various definitions.
Rape, in its most general sense, is when a man has sexual
intercourse with a woman without her full, freely-given, and
informed consent.
Thus, what is legally "statutory rape" may not necessarily fall
under that definition. Not that there's anything wrong with having
laws prohibiting such acts.
However, my definition is a bit broader than that of the law in any
jurisdiction I know of in one respect. It could treat bigamy as
rape in some cases.
It appears Quaddie thinks that only women can be raped, by men.
That's not 'a bit broader'. Its narrower than most legal definitions.
Remember who proposed Vat-Girls because all men are uncontrollably horny
all the time and will have sex with anything that has a hole and can't
run away?
--
Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservation
instinct are running screaming.
Quadibloc
2018-10-01 21:57:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Remember who proposed Vat-Girls because all men are uncontrollably horny
all the time and will have sex with anything that has a hole and can't
run away?
That wouldn't be me.

I believe most men are capable of being responsible, and of
respecting women. Some cultures don't seem to bother much
about teaching men to behave in this fashion.

Men do have a strong sexual impulse.

That would in no way excuse misdeeds on their part.

But it has implications for building strong and stable
societies. Men, with their greater aggression and upper body
strength, have historically been dominant. They staff the
police forces and the armies.

So, particularly in a lower-tech environment - before that
great equalizer, the firearm, was invented - you have got to
concentrate on keeping the men happy.

Some men don't seem to grasp the urgency of eliminating rape,
because they apparently are unable to fully empathize with the
women who are its victims.

So if I can't reach them by talking about the sufferings of
women who are the victims of rape, then it might work if I
note the effects of rape on men.

Rape has a tendency to render women inoperative.

If there aren't enough women around interested in having a
partner for all the decent men, bad things will happen.

A few might descend into extreme misogyny, and become
dangerous to women.

But that is something solvable as a law enforcement problem.

What is more intractable are the social consequences that
involve legitimate actions by frustrated men. Increased union
militancy, because men hope to have better success with girls
if they made more money. Nothing wrong with unions working for
social justice, but if they're trying to chase something that
*isn't there*, it will just cause inflation and stuff like
that.

Or they might vote for demagogic snake-oil salesmen at the
ballot box - the kind that start wars.

I disagree with trying to solve this by brainwashing women
into domesticity and limiting their career options. But
protecting women from rape is a good thing.

And making vat-girls is a neutral thing, because as antitrust
law shows, people don't have the right to be protected from
competition.

John Savard
Quadibloc
2018-09-30 18:23:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
If you're suggesting that rape is qualitatively or in any other way
worse than murder...
...you've really lost it.
It's true that the victim is alive afterwards. Thus, we have to limit
the severity of the sentence for rape, so as not to encourage rapists
to kill their victims to make themselves harder to find.

However, rape is:

a) Unnatural. Unlike death, which is an inevitable event in everyone's
life, being a victim of sexual assault is an uncommon thing, though not
nearly as rare as it should be.

b) A crime of torture with devastating psychological effects. For
example, it is well known that many rape victims feel a diminished
sense of *self* worth, they feel shame rather than only embarassment
associated with the assault, they blame themselves for it. Such errors
in reasoning clearly indicate severe mental damage caused by the
assault.

John Savard
J. Clarke
2018-09-30 18:43:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 30 Sep 2018 11:23:58 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Alan Baker
If you're suggesting that rape is qualitatively or in any other way
worse than murder...
...you've really lost it.
It's true that the victim is alive afterwards. Thus, we have to limit
the severity of the sentence for rape, so as not to encourage rapists
to kill their victims to make themselves harder to find.
a) Unnatural. Unlike death, which is an inevitable event in everyone's
life, being a victim of sexual assault is an uncommon thing, though not
nearly as rare as it should be.
In what way is it "unnatural"? Animals of various kinds do it. If
you take the view that it is always rape unless verbal consent is
given, then all sex not involving humans is rape.
Post by Quadibloc
b) A crime of torture with devastating psychological effects. For
example, it is well known that many rape victims feel a diminished
sense of *self* worth, they feel shame rather than only embarassment
associated with the assault, they blame themselves for it. Such errors
in reasoning clearly indicate severe mental damage caused by the
assault.
Quite a leap from feeling a certain way to "severe mental damage". And
what if she really _could_ have avoided it by making a different
decision such as, say, doing what her parents had _told_ her to do?
Alan Baker
2018-09-30 23:29:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Alan Baker
If you're suggesting that rape is qualitatively or in any other way
worse than murder...
...you've really lost it.
It's true that the victim is alive afterwards. Thus, we have to limit
the severity of the sentence for rape, so as not to encourage rapists
to kill their victims to make themselves harder to find.
a) Unnatural. Unlike death, which is an inevitable event in everyone's
life, being a victim of sexual assault is an uncommon thing, though not
nearly as rare as it should be.
Sorry. Complete bullshit.
Post by Quadibloc
b) A crime of torture with devastating psychological effects. For
example, it is well known that many rape victims feel a diminished
sense of *self* worth, they feel shame rather than only embarassment
associated with the assault, they blame themselves for it. Such errors
in reasoning clearly indicate severe mental damage caused by the
assault.
It is well known that within our culture many victims of rape are TAUGHT
to feel a diminished sense of worth.
Dimensional Traveler
2018-10-01 05:50:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Alan Baker
If you're suggesting that rape is qualitatively or in any other way
worse than murder...
...you've really lost it.
It's true that the victim is alive afterwards. Thus, we have to limit
the severity of the sentence for rape, so as not to encourage rapists
to kill their victims to make themselves harder to find.
a) Unnatural. Unlike death, which is an inevitable event in everyone's
life, being a victim of sexual assault is an uncommon thing, though not
nearly as rare as it should be.
Sorry. Complete bullshit.
Post by Quadibloc
b) A crime of torture with devastating psychological effects. For
example, it is well known that many rape victims feel a diminished
sense of *self* worth, they feel shame rather than only embarassment
associated with the assault, they blame themselves for it. Such errors
in reasoning clearly indicate severe mental damage caused by the
assault.
It is well known that within our culture many victims of rape are TAUGHT
to feel a diminished sense of worth.
Not in MY culture, pale face!
--
Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservation
instinct are running screaming.
Alan Baker
2018-10-01 23:34:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Alan Baker
If you're suggesting that rape is qualitatively or in any other way
worse than murder...
...you've really lost it.
It's true that the victim is alive afterwards. Thus, we have to limit
the severity of the sentence for rape, so as not to encourage rapists
to kill their victims to make themselves harder to find.
a) Unnatural. Unlike death, which is an inevitable event in everyone's
life, being a victim of sexual assault is an uncommon thing, though not
nearly as rare as it should be.
Sorry. Complete bullshit.
Post by Quadibloc
b) A crime of torture with devastating psychological effects. For
example, it is well known that many rape victims feel a diminished
sense of *self* worth, they feel shame rather than only embarassment
associated with the assault, they blame themselves for it. Such errors
in reasoning clearly indicate severe mental damage caused by the
assault.
It is well known that within our culture many victims of rape are
TAUGHT to feel a diminished sense of worth.
Not in MY culture, pale face!
Sorry to have generalized too much...

:-(
Alan Baker
2018-09-30 17:18:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 30 Sep 2018 08:02:51 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Dimensional Traveler
This is Quaddie you're talking to. He's never done anything that could
possibly involve contact with reality.
If a human being were to die, we could never, ever bring him back.
Thus, if drivers need to be better trained and better supervised, so that
the private use of motor vehicles does not result in deaths, then that is
clearly what should be done.
Do you drive?
Post by Quadibloc
If someone were to die, you could never bring him back. Therefore, you do
not take the risk of someone dying, because if you do, and someone dies,
then your liability would be infinite. Because justice demands that there be
no externalities in one's actions.
Now you are asking for immortality.
Earth to Quadi, there is no _risk_ of someone dying. That is a
_certainty_. EVERYBODY dies. I am going to, you are going to,
everyone participating in this discussion is going to.
Now, if you want to talk about something that has some relation to
reality, get back to us.
Sorry, but that is, in its own way, just as specious.

Advancing the argument that because we'll all die some day, we shouldn't
examine the question of the risks that exist is asinine.

You sound like Trump's administration which has now acknowledged that it
believes world temperatures will rise by 7 degrees (Celsius) by 2100...

...and has declared that because they don't believe that can be
prevented that there is no point in even trying to mitigate emissions.
David DeLaney
2018-10-09 09:10:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Earth to Quadi, there is no _risk_ of someone dying. That is a
_certainty_. EVERYBODY dies. I am going to, you are going to,
everyone participating in this discussion is going to.
"All die. O the embarrassment."

Dave, Eugenia does not die in this book, though another known character does
accidentally.
--
\/David DeLaney posting thru EarthLink - "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
my gatekeeper archives are no longer accessible :( / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
Alan Baker
2018-09-30 17:15:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Dimensional Traveler
This is Quaddie you're talking to. He's never done anything that could
possibly involve contact with reality.
If a human being were to die, we could never, ever bring him back.
And pointing out this obviousness was necessary.. ...why.
Post by Quadibloc
Thus, if drivers need to be better trained and better supervised, so that
the private use of motor vehicles does not result in deaths, then that is
clearly what should be done.
No. That just won't wash.

No amount of training and supervision can ever result in any human
endeavour where the energies involved are in the same range as they are
in driving can be made competely safe.

Do I think drivers should be better trained? Yes; certainly here in
North America (and I'm sure in many other jurisdictions).

Will that result in zero fatalities? Nope. Not a chance.

Human beings make mistakes. That is a simple fact.

Some of those mistakes are going to be made in regimes where the
possibility that someone will die as a consequence will exist. That,
too, is a fact.
Post by Quadibloc
If someone were to die, you could never bring him back. Therefore, you do
not take the risk of someone dying, because if you do, and someone dies,
then your liability would be infinite. Because justice demands that there be
no externalities in one's actions.
There is no way to eliminate the the risk of someone dying. Period.
Quadibloc
2018-09-30 17:26:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Will that result in zero fatalities? Nope. Not a chance.
Human beings make mistakes. That is a simple fact.
This is true. However, the lethality of motor vehicle operation would not be
_mathematically_ zero even if the number of motor vehicle fatalities in the
United States were zero during, say, 99 out of 100 calendar years.

Even that might be unrealistic. But I think that with a serious effort to
make it as low as reasonably possible, without constant surveillance or
exorbitant expense, we could still do a *lot* better than we're currently
doing.

John Savard
Alan Baker
2018-09-30 17:41:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Alan Baker
Will that result in zero fatalities? Nope. Not a chance.
Human beings make mistakes. That is a simple fact.
This is true. However, the lethality of motor vehicle operation would not be
_mathematically_ zero even if the number of motor vehicle fatalities in the
United States were zero during, say, 99 out of 100 calendar years.
Even that might be unrealistic. But I think that with a serious effort to
make it as low as reasonably possible, without constant surveillance or
exorbitant expense, we could still do a *lot* better than we're currently
doing.
So do I. And we should certainly try.

But that won't happen as long as politicians are more interested in
appearing to do something about road fatalities than they are in
actually doing what is useful.
J. Clarke
2018-09-30 18:46:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 30 Sep 2018 10:26:03 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Alan Baker
Will that result in zero fatalities? Nope. Not a chance.
Human beings make mistakes. That is a simple fact.
This is true. However, the lethality of motor vehicle operation would not be
_mathematically_ zero even if the number of motor vehicle fatalities in the
United States were zero during, say, 99 out of 100 calendar years.
Even that might be unrealistic. But I think that with a serious effort to
make it as low as reasonably possible, without constant surveillance or
exorbitant expense, we could still do a *lot* better than we're currently
doing.
OK, tell us how do do this. You say we could do better, tell us how.
If you can't then what makes you think someone else can?

And with your view that people should be executed for minor traffic
offenses, how many people would die from execution in your brave new
world compared to the ones who die in actual accidents today?
Kevrob
2018-10-01 17:42:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 30 Sep 2018 10:26:03 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Alan Baker
Will that result in zero fatalities? Nope. Not a chance.
Human beings make mistakes. That is a simple fact.
This is true. However, the lethality of motor vehicle operation would not be
_mathematically_ zero even if the number of motor vehicle fatalities in the
United States were zero during, say, 99 out of 100 calendar years.
Even that might be unrealistic. But I think that with a serious effort to
make it as low as reasonably possible, without constant surveillance or
exorbitant expense, we could still do a *lot* better than we're currently
doing.
OK, tell us how do do this. You say we could do better, tell us how.
If you can't then what makes you think someone else can?
And with your view that people should be executed for minor traffic
offenses, how many people would die from execution in your brave new
world compared to the ones who die in actual accidents today?
US annual traffic fatalaties have been, in my lifetime, as high
as 54,000 per annum.

Improvements in cars, and in roads, the anti-drunk-driving campaigns,
and secular trends have brought these down by more than a fifth.

Improved medical intervention has, as with the case of gunshot victims,
reduced the percenage of accident victims who die after a crash.

[quote]

The National Safety Council on Thursday estimated that 40,100
people were killed in traffic crashes last year, down just under 1
percent from the 2016 total of 40,327. The group said it’s too early to
tell whether the small decline means a downward trend after a two-year
spike in deaths that was blamed largely on people driving more miles as
the economy improved as well as an increase in distracted driving.

https://www.apnews.com/9ff78cbb386245418dac7e7a91d714ce

The reductions have stalled. Given that driving deaths go down
in a bad economy, because people cut back on driving, I suppose
if we wrecked the economy they'd be reduced even further!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in_U.S._by_year

Kevin R
Peter Trei
2018-10-01 21:38:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Kevrob
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 30 Sep 2018 10:26:03 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Alan Baker
Will that result in zero fatalities? Nope. Not a chance.
Human beings make mistakes. That is a simple fact.
This is true. However, the lethality of motor vehicle operation would not be
_mathematically_ zero even if the number of motor vehicle fatalities in the
United States were zero during, say, 99 out of 100 calendar years.
Even that might be unrealistic. But I think that with a serious effort to
make it as low as reasonably possible, without constant surveillance or
exorbitant expense, we could still do a *lot* better than we're currently
doing.
OK, tell us how do do this. You say we could do better, tell us how.
If you can't then what makes you think someone else can?
And with your view that people should be executed for minor traffic
offenses, how many people would die from execution in your brave new
world compared to the ones who die in actual accidents today?
US annual traffic fatalaties have been, in my lifetime, as high
as 54,000 per annum.
Improvements in cars, and in roads, the anti-drunk-driving campaigns,
and secular trends have brought these down by more than a fifth.
Improved medical intervention has, as with the case of gunshot victims,
reduced the percenage of accident victims who die after a crash.
[quote]
The National Safety Council on Thursday estimated that 40,100
people were killed in traffic crashes last year, down just under 1
percent from the 2016 total of 40,327. The group said it’s too early to
tell whether the small decline means a downward trend after a two-year
spike in deaths that was blamed largely on people driving more miles as
the economy improved as well as an increase in distracted driving.
https://www.apnews.com/9ff78cbb386245418dac7e7a91d714ce
The reductions have stalled. Given that driving deaths go down
in a bad economy, because people cut back on driving, I suppose
if we wrecked the economy they'd be reduced even further!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in_U.S._by_year
Kevin R
You might also want to look at other countries.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate

Excluding Libya (war, 73.4), and microstates, the rate of fatalities
per 100k population runs from 36.2 (Thailand) to 2.2 (Norway). The
US is at 10.6.

pt
p***@hotmail.com
2018-10-01 22:31:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Kevrob
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 30 Sep 2018 10:26:03 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Alan Baker
Will that result in zero fatalities? Nope. Not a chance.
Human beings make mistakes. That is a simple fact.
This is true. However, the lethality of motor vehicle operation would not be
_mathematically_ zero even if the number of motor vehicle fatalities in the
United States were zero during, say, 99 out of 100 calendar years.
Even that might be unrealistic. But I think that with a serious effort to
make it as low as reasonably possible, without constant surveillance or
exorbitant expense, we could still do a *lot* better than we're currently
doing.
OK, tell us how do do this. You say we could do better, tell us how.
If you can't then what makes you think someone else can?
And with your view that people should be executed for minor traffic
offenses, how many people would die from execution in your brave new
world compared to the ones who die in actual accidents today?
US annual traffic fatalaties have been, in my lifetime, as high
as 54,000 per annum.
Improvements in cars, and in roads, the anti-drunk-driving campaigns,
and secular trends have brought these down by more than a fifth.
Improved medical intervention has, as with the case of gunshot victims,
reduced the percenage of accident victims who die after a crash.
[quote]
The National Safety Council on Thursday estimated that 40,100
people were killed in traffic crashes last year, down just under 1
percent from the 2016 total of 40,327. The group said it’s too early to
tell whether the small decline means a downward trend after a two-year
spike in deaths that was blamed largely on people driving more miles as
the economy improved as well as an increase in distracted driving.
https://www.apnews.com/9ff78cbb386245418dac7e7a91d714ce
The reductions have stalled. Given that driving deaths go down
in a bad economy, because people cut back on driving, I suppose
if we wrecked the economy they'd be reduced even further!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in_U.S._by_year
Kevin R
You might also want to look at other countries.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate
Excluding Libya (war, 73.4), and microstates, the rate of fatalities
per 100k population runs from 36.2 (Thailand) to 2.2 (Norway). The
US is at 10.6.
Looking at fatalities per billion vehicle kilometers in the same table,
I see that various European countries have rates of 3.4 (UK), 3.5 (Sweden),
3.6 (Switzerland), 4.8 (Finland), 4 (Denmark), 4.9 (Germany), 5.8 (France),
and 3.6 (Ireland), while the United States is 7.1, somewhat higher although
less than Japan at 8. Curiously, this is not listed for Norway. I suspect
it would be similar to Sweden and Denmark.

Peter Wezeman
anti-social Darwinist
Lawrence Watt-Evans
2018-10-02 16:06:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by Peter Trei
You might also want to look at other countries.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate
Excluding Libya (war, 73.4), and microstates, the rate of fatalities
per 100k population runs from 36.2 (Thailand) to 2.2 (Norway). The
US is at 10.6.
Looking at fatalities per billion vehicle kilometers in the same table,
I see that various European countries have rates of 3.4 (UK), 3.5 (Sweden),
3.6 (Switzerland), 4.8 (Finland), 4 (Denmark), 4.9 (Germany), 5.8 (France),
and 3.6 (Ireland), while the United States is 7.1, somewhat higher although
less than Japan at 8. Curiously, this is not listed for Norway. I suspect
it would be similar to Sweden and Denmark.
If there's some way to figure in average driving speed, I suspect that
would shift the numbers significantly -- Americans drive faster than
most Europeans, largely because we have more of the highways that make
it easy to do so.

(With that in mind, I find myself puzzling over why France's rate is
higher than Germany's.)

Larger cars may also factor in somewhere.
--
My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com
My latest novel is Stone Unturned: A Legend of Ethshar.
See http://www.ethshar.com/StoneUnturned.shtml
Peter Trei
2018-10-02 16:14:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by Peter Trei
You might also want to look at other countries.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate
Excluding Libya (war, 73.4), and microstates, the rate of fatalities
per 100k population runs from 36.2 (Thailand) to 2.2 (Norway). The
US is at 10.6.
Looking at fatalities per billion vehicle kilometers in the same table,
I see that various European countries have rates of 3.4 (UK), 3.5 (Sweden),
3.6 (Switzerland), 4.8 (Finland), 4 (Denmark), 4.9 (Germany), 5.8 (France),
and 3.6 (Ireland), while the United States is 7.1, somewhat higher although
less than Japan at 8. Curiously, this is not listed for Norway. I suspect
it would be similar to Sweden and Denmark.
If there's some way to figure in average driving speed, I suspect that
would shift the numbers significantly -- Americans drive faster than
most Europeans, largely because we have more of the highways that make
it easy to do so.
(With that in mind, I find myself puzzling over why France's rate is
higher than Germany's.)
If you'd driven in both countries (I have), you wouldn't. German drivers are
far more disciplined and law-abiding than French drivers.

pt
J. Clarke
2018-10-03 01:21:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 02 Oct 2018 12:06:59 -0400, Lawrence Watt-Evans
Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by Peter Trei
You might also want to look at other countries.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate
Excluding Libya (war, 73.4), and microstates, the rate of fatalities
per 100k population runs from 36.2 (Thailand) to 2.2 (Norway). The
US is at 10.6.
Looking at fatalities per billion vehicle kilometers in the same table,
I see that various European countries have rates of 3.4 (UK), 3.5 (Sweden),
3.6 (Switzerland), 4.8 (Finland), 4 (Denmark), 4.9 (Germany), 5.8 (France),
and 3.6 (Ireland), while the United States is 7.1, somewhat higher although
less than Japan at 8. Curiously, this is not listed for Norway. I suspect
it would be similar to Sweden and Denmark.
If there's some way to figure in average driving speed, I suspect that
would shift the numbers significantly -- Americans drive faster than
most Europeans, largely because we have more of the highways that make
it easy to do so.
Except that statistically there are 3.62 deaths per billion
vehicle-kilometers in the US on controlled access highways (the kind
that "make it easy to do") vs 6.87 on all roads. A similar ratio
prevails in Germany.
Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
(With that in mind, I find myself puzzling over why France's rate is
higher than Germany's.)
Larger cars may also factor in somewhere.
J. Clarke
2018-10-02 01:11:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Kevrob
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 30 Sep 2018 10:26:03 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Alan Baker
Will that result in zero fatalities? Nope. Not a chance.
Human beings make mistakes. That is a simple fact.
This is true. However, the lethality of motor vehicle operation would not be
_mathematically_ zero even if the number of motor vehicle fatalities in the
United States were zero during, say, 99 out of 100 calendar years.
Even that might be unrealistic. But I think that with a serious effort to
make it as low as reasonably possible, without constant surveillance or
exorbitant expense, we could still do a *lot* better than we're currently
doing.
OK, tell us how do do this. You say we could do better, tell us how.
If you can't then what makes you think someone else can?
And with your view that people should be executed for minor traffic
offenses, how many people would die from execution in your brave new
world compared to the ones who die in actual accidents today?
US annual traffic fatalaties have been, in my lifetime, as high
as 54,000 per annum.
That's not really the question though. If we execute everyone who is
convicted of a moving violation, as Quadi seems to want, that would be
more than 40 million deaths the first year.
Post by Kevrob
Improvements in cars, and in roads, the anti-drunk-driving campaigns,
and secular trends have brought these down by more than a fifth.
Improved medical intervention has, as with the case of gunshot victims,
reduced the percenage of accident victims who die after a crash.
[quote]
The National Safety Council on Thursday estimated that 40,100
people were killed in traffic crashes last year, down just under 1
percent from the 2016 total of 40,327. The group said it’s too early to
tell whether the small decline means a downward trend after a two-year
spike in deaths that was blamed largely on people driving more miles as
the economy improved as well as an increase in distracted driving.
https://www.apnews.com/9ff78cbb386245418dac7e7a91d714ce
The reductions have stalled. Given that driving deaths go down
in a bad economy, because people cut back on driving, I suppose
if we wrecked the economy they'd be reduced even further!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in_U.S._by_year
Kevin R
David DeLaney
2018-10-09 09:13:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
There is no way to eliminate the the risk of someone dying. Period.
... James Nicoll has been working on it experimentally for some time.

Dave, we peer over the shoulders of giants and comment
--
\/David DeLaney posting thru EarthLink - "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
my gatekeeper archives are no longer accessible :( / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
Dan Swartzendruber
2018-09-30 19:06:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Kevrob
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Robert Carnegie
Laura Bush killed some guy in high school.
Good thing she never got to be President. Unless it was self-defence, since it
looks like a lot of women would *need* to kill some guys in high school in self-defence.
The fatal traffic accident Laura Bush caused is something
any inexperienced driver, and a lot of experienced ones,
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/laura-bush-car-accident/
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Robert Carnegie
Teddy Kennedy killed a woman, but if Wikipedia and my
arithmetic are correct, he was 37. I had it mentally
filed as "dumb teenager does something horrific,
but it's okay somehow."
Chappaquiddick certainly isn't OK. And I didn't like his extreme left-wing
politics either. One could claim that he didn't actually kill Mary-Jo Kopechne,
he merely hesitated too long to save her life, but that's not a distinction I
care much about.
Kennedy might be given a pass on the accident, but holing up and
waiting 10 hours to report it is what anyone could see as a stain
on Teddy's reputation.
No way. You or I drive drunk and a passenger dies due to our fault,
vehicular homicide for sure...
Greg Goss
2018-10-01 10:39:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Robert Carnegie
Laura Bush killed some guy in high school.
Good thing she never got to be President. Unless it was self-defence, since it
looks like a lot of women would *need* to kill some guys in high school in self-defence.
Bad driving if I recall correctly. I don't remember if intoxication
was a factor.
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Robert Carnegie
Teddy Kennedy killed a woman, but if Wikipedia and my
arithmetic are correct, he was 37. I had it mentally
filed as "dumb teenager does something horrific,
but it's okay somehow."
Chappaquiddick certainly isn't OK. And I didn't like his extreme left-wing
politics either. One could claim that he didn't actually kill Mary-Jo Kopechne,
he merely hesitated too long to save her life, but that's not a distinction I
care much about.
It proved that his decision-making in the heat of the moment was
totally crappy. Senators are never hit with such decisions. This is
why he never should have run for President.
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.
Quadibloc
2018-09-29 04:46:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
So, where does the responsibility for proper behavior lie,
I'd say the responsibility for behavior lies with the people doing the behaving.

Some people live in tough neighborhoods, and sometimes have no choice but to go
to the store after dark. That doesn't make them at fault if they're the victim
of a robbery as a result. We should have the police doing a better job, so that
crimes like that just don't happen.

The narrative I'm seeing is - a brave heroic woman, in the face of death threats, in the face of her own painful trauma, testifies, thus performing her civic duty regardless of cost - and I find it hard to understand why anyone with human compassion would do other than get on board with the narrative, praise her courage, and condemn those who have chosen to oppose her.

Of course, the trouble is that the Republicans, if they don't put Kavanaugh on
the Supreme Court, might have to wait until *after the midterms* to fill that
vacancy. And if the Democrats make gains in the House, they might not be able to
get a suitably conservative judge confirmed.

Or, in fact, *any* judge. After what happened to Merrick Garland, why should
they extend the Republicans any scintilla of cooperation?

Still, that does point to a valid issue.

While being a Supreme Court justice is a position of great power and
responsibility - would you hand out top-secret security clearances on the basis
that one is entitled to them unless *proven* to be a security risk? - there is a
legitimate reason for setting a high bar to eliminating Kavanaugh. The idea that
the Democratic party might have resorted to dishonest methods to achieve its
political goals... can't be ignored.

You can't trust that everyone will be honest when the stakes are this high.

But _unless_ Christine Blasey Ford was put up to this by some dirty tricks
department in the Democratic Party, there is no way that Brett Kavanaugh should
be entrusted with the interpretation of the laws of the land.

John Savard
J. Clarke
2018-09-29 13:11:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 28 Sep 2018 21:46:11 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
So, where does the responsibility for proper behavior lie,
I'd say the responsibility for behavior lies with the people doing the behaving.
So nobody has even the slightest responsibility to recognize a
dangerous situation and remove themselves from it?
Post by Quadibloc
Some people live in tough neighborhoods, and sometimes have no choice but to go
to the store after dark. That doesn't make them at fault if they're the victim
of a robbery as a result. We should have the police doing a better job, so that
crimes like that just don't happen.
In that case you have people who are not intoxicated preying on other
people who are not intoxicated. Again a different situation.

In our society becoming intoxicated in private is lawful and socially
acceptable. Perhaps you want to make it unlawful. We tried that.
Post by Quadibloc
The narrative I'm seeing is - a brave heroic woman, in the face of death threats, in the face of her own painful trauma, testifies, thus performing her civic duty regardless of cost - and I find it hard to understand why anyone with human compassion would do other than get on board with the narrative, praise her courage, and condemn those who have chosen to oppose her.
Nobody in power is "opposing her". There isn't anything to "oppose".
She is giving testimony that Congress believes to be relevant to the
process of appointing a Supreme Court justice. The duty of Congress
is to weigh that testimony, gather any other evidence necessary to
determine whether it is credible, and to act accordingly. Part of
that process is to question her thorougly and identify any holes in
her story. If you don't like that, if you think that we should just
believe everything she says because it suits the narrative, you don't
really understand the concept of "justice".
Post by Quadibloc
Of course, the trouble is that the Republicans, if they don't put Kavanaugh on
the Supreme Court, might have to wait until *after the midterms* to fill that
vacancy. And if the Democrats make gains in the House, they might not be able to
get a suitably conservative judge confirmed.
So now you get down to it--we should believe her because it's bad for
Republicans.
Post by Quadibloc
Or, in fact, *any* judge. After what happened to Merrick Garland, why should
they extend the Republicans any scintilla of cooperation?
So fine, we have an 8-person Court. Then seven and six and five and
four and three and two and one and eventually Gorsuch decides
everything. Is that what you want?
Post by Quadibloc
Still, that does point to a valid issue.
While being a Supreme Court justice is a position of great power and
responsibility - would you hand out top-secret security clearances on the basis
that one is entitled to them unless *proven* to be a security risk? - there is a
legitimate reason for setting a high bar to eliminating Kavanaugh. The idea that
the Democratic party might have resorted to dishonest methods to achieve its
political goals... can't be ignored.
You can't trust that everyone will be honest when the stakes are this high.
But _unless_ Christine Blasey Ford was put up to this by some dirty tricks
department in the Democratic Party, there is no way that Brett Kavanaugh should
be entrusted with the interpretation of the laws of the land.
How about we let Congress decide whether or not to believe her? It
might not be a dirty trick you know, it might be a false or erroneous
memory.
Quadibloc
2018-09-29 13:52:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
How about we let Congress decide whether or not to believe her? It
might not be a dirty trick you know, it might be a false or erroneous
memory.
I thought the hippocampus settled that question.

But more to the point, for there to be confidence on my part that there is some
correlation between "Congress believes her" and "she is telling the truth", it
would have to be the case that the members of Congress would make that
determination otherwise than strictly along partisan lines.

So there is a question of whether you have been paying attention to the news.

Of course, I suppose one could raise the issue of respecting the decision of the
American people to elect Donald Trump as their President, as well as to elect
their present complement of Senators and Representatives.

(One also has to mention respect for the law and the Constitution of the United
States, because of the nagging detail that Hillary won the popular vote, with
Trump getting in thanks to the Electoral College. But then the Electoral College
led to Kennedy defeating Nixon too, so you win some, you lose some.)

In Canada, a somewhat uncouth individual - who admitted to past illegal cocaine
use - is now the Premier of Ontario. His last claim to fame was using taxpayer
money in Toronto to rip up bicycle lanes built at a cost of taxpayer money.

But why he got elected in Ontario is obvious: the last Premier caused the price
of electricity to go up significantly to pay for subsidizing wind and solar
power projects. In Ontario, electricity was cheap, because it mainly came from
carbon-free hydroelectric dams - like in Norway, where the Nazis built their
heavy-water plants - and so people *heat their homes* with it.

Which somewhat reduces the need for wind and solar, and which means that the
consequences of raising the price of electricity are severe.

It's not as if voters can construct the candidates they like, they have to
choose from what is available based on what is more important to them.

In the case of Donald Trump - well, I think that getting control of the borders
against illegal immigrants, and protecting the country from terrorism, for
example, are good ideas. Building a wall and trying to get Mexico to pay for it,
on the other hand, is beneath contempt, cancelling DACA is vile, and a blanket
ban on immigrants from a wide selection of countries is a violation of the
international convention on refugees, to which the United States is a signatory.

The Howard Stern interview should have been enough to warn Americans that this guy wasn't the competent fellow needed to advance a conservative agenda in a time when conservatism is viewed with suspicion.

In normal times, when somebody like John F. Kennedy or Barack Obama is
President, America commands the love and respect of the people of the world.

George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan were more controversial, but they nevertheless
were responsible and respectable; they achieved much that was good during their
Presidencies, even if one might not agree with absolutely everything they said
or did.

On the other hand, Donald Trump appears to be "off the scale"; utterly
unprecedented, and basically making the United States look like a banana
republic writ large. If there is a political division so entrenched in the
United States that he will further divide Americans instead of uniting them
against him, at least I hope the women of America will have the sense to unite
against him.

John Savard
J. Clarke
2018-09-29 14:21:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 29 Sep 2018 06:52:12 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
How about we let Congress decide whether or not to believe her? It
might not be a dirty trick you know, it might be a false or erroneous
memory.
I thought the hippocampus settled that question.
But more to the point, for there to be confidence on my part that there is some
correlation between "Congress believes her" and "she is telling the truth", it
would have to be the case that the members of Congress would make that
determination otherwise than strictly along partisan lines.
We know you hate Trump. Everybody hates Trump, it's the fasionable
thing to do. What does this have to do with attitudes toward people
who make allegations of sexual asault.

<anti-Trump diatribe snipped>
Quadibloc
2018-09-29 13:54:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
So nobody has even the slightest responsibility to recognize a
dangerous situation and remove themselves from it?
Certain things aren't subject to conservation laws.

People have plenty of responsibility to recognize dangerous situations and escape
from them or avoid them. But that doesn't in the slightest diminish the
responsibility of people who commit acts of aggression.

John Savard
J. Clarke
2018-09-29 14:23:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 29 Sep 2018 06:54:06 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
So nobody has even the slightest responsibility to recognize a
dangerous situation and remove themselves from it?
Certain things aren't subject to conservation laws.
People have plenty of responsibility to recognize dangerous situations and escape
from them or avoid them. But that doesn't in the slightest diminish the
responsibility of people who commit acts of aggression.
Even when those people took reasonable precautions to avoid the
circumstances that would lead to such acts and the person against whom
the aggression occurred circumvented those precautions?
Alan Baker
2018-09-29 20:59:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Sat, 29 Sep 2018 06:54:06 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
So nobody has even the slightest responsibility to recognize a
dangerous situation and remove themselves from it?
Certain things aren't subject to conservation laws.
People have plenty of responsibility to recognize dangerous situations and escape
from them or avoid them. But that doesn't in the slightest diminish the
responsibility of people who commit acts of aggression.
Even when those people took reasonable precautions to avoid the
circumstances that would lead to such acts and the person against whom
the aggression occurred circumvented those precautions?
What reasonable precautions are you suggesting the perpetrator(s) took,
here?

Sorry, but this looks like a hugely bullshit argument to me.

You go to a party, you know people will be drinking and you know that
drinking makes some people belligerent...

...so if someone attacks you out of the blue, are they less culpable?

Do he/they get a pass because you were drinking too?
Alan Baker
2018-09-29 19:32:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
So nobody has even the slightest responsibility to recognize a
dangerous situation and remove themselves from it?
Certain things aren't subject to conservation laws.
People have plenty of responsibility to recognize dangerous situations and escape
from them or avoid them. But that doesn't in the slightest diminish the
responsibility of people who commit acts of aggression.
John Savard
Bingo.

Absolutely, 100% correct.

Imagine a mugger:

"Your honour, yes: I did mug and assault that man, but I should receive
some consideration for the fact that he walked down a dark alley in a
bad part of town.
Alan Baker
2018-09-29 19:15:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 28 Sep 2018 21:46:11 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
So, where does the responsibility for proper behavior lie,
I'd say the responsibility for behavior lies with the people doing the behaving.
So nobody has even the slightest responsibility to recognize a
dangerous situation and remove themselves from it?
No.

Nobody who commits a crime is in any way relieved of their
responsibility because the victim of that crime didn't remove themselves
from the situation.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Quadibloc
Some people live in tough neighborhoods, and sometimes have no choice but to go
to the store after dark. That doesn't make them at fault if they're the victim
of a robbery as a result. We should have the police doing a better job, so that
crimes like that just don't happen.
In that case you have people who are not intoxicated preying on other
people who are not intoxicated. Again a different situation.
And it doesn't matter. Because preying on someone who is intoxicated is
wrong even when the perpetrator is intoxicated.
Post by J. Clarke
In our society becoming intoxicated in private is lawful and socially
acceptable. Perhaps you want to make it unlawful. We tried that.
And with that goes the clear understanding that being intoxicated in no
way gives you a free pass to break the law.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Quadibloc
The narrative I'm seeing is - a brave heroic woman, in the face of death threats, in the face of her own painful trauma, testifies, thus performing her civic duty regardless of cost - and I find it hard to understand why anyone with human compassion would do other than get on board with the narrative, praise her courage, and condemn those who have chosen to oppose her.
Nobody in power is "opposing her". There isn't anything to "oppose".
She is giving testimony that Congress believes to be relevant to the
process of appointing a Supreme Court justice. The duty of Congress
is to weigh that testimony, gather any other evidence necessary to
determine whether it is credible, and to act accordingly. Part of
that process is to question her thorougly and identify any holes in
her story. If you don't like that, if you think that we should just
believe everything she says because it suits the narrative, you don't
really understand the concept of "justice".
Post by Quadibloc
Of course, the trouble is that the Republicans, if they don't put Kavanaugh on
the Supreme Court, might have to wait until *after the midterms* to fill that
vacancy. And if the Democrats make gains in the House, they might not be able to
get a suitably conservative judge confirmed.
So now you get down to it--we should believe her because it's bad for
Republicans.
Not what he said at all.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Quadibloc
Or, in fact, *any* judge. After what happened to Merrick Garland, why should
they extend the Republicans any scintilla of cooperation?
So fine, we have an 8-person Court. Then seven and six and five and
four and three and two and one and eventually Gorsuch decides
everything. Is that what you want?
Post by Quadibloc
Still, that does point to a valid issue.
While being a Supreme Court justice is a position of great power and
responsibility - would you hand out top-secret security clearances on the basis
that one is entitled to them unless *proven* to be a security risk? - there is a
legitimate reason for setting a high bar to eliminating Kavanaugh. The idea that
the Democratic party might have resorted to dishonest methods to achieve its
political goals... can't be ignored.
You can't trust that everyone will be honest when the stakes are this high.
But _unless_ Christine Blasey Ford was put up to this by some dirty tricks
department in the Democratic Party, there is no way that Brett Kavanaugh should
be entrusted with the interpretation of the laws of the land.
How about we let Congress decide whether or not to believe her? It
might not be a dirty trick you know, it might be a false or erroneous
memory.
You mean a Congress that will decide this wholly along partisan lines?

Let the FBI investigate.

Let's look into the amazing coincidence that the people she named as
being there were all listed in a calendar she didn't even know existed...

...as getting together on a weeknight...

...which makes Kavanaugh's statement that they didn't get together on
weeknights a lie...

...and that one of the people was a close friend of Kavanaugh that she'd
been going out with...

...which makes his claim not to have known her at all very shaky.
Quadibloc
2018-09-29 13:02:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Quadi, stick to the damned topic. We were talking about a specific
case in which specific testimony was provided under oath. Now you're
bringing in a different unrelated case.
Here is a third case, well known to Canadians, as it received extended coverage
in the news media.

A young woman was raped by four boys at a party, and they took a video of it
with a cell phone and passed it around.

Subsequently, the victim was "slut-shamed" by the other girls in her school.

She committed suicide.

Now, I see no problem with taking the four boys who raped her, even if they
weren't sober at the time, and punishing them severely.

But what about the girls who later shunned and ridiculed the victim? They did
something wrong that led to the death of an innocent victim.

But if we throw all of them in jail, with their first parole hearing in 25
years, as would seem to be the least that justice would demand, well, there is a
potential threat to public order. If we have a whole small town mourning its
children, how will the parents of the girl who committed suicide live there in
safety - never mind in triumph and victory, as justice demands?

Of course, with sufficient repression, their safety could be ensured, but that's
not the sort of life we want for the people of a free, democratic nation!

So *my* question is: how does one temper justice with mercy, and yet still have
justice?

John Savard
J. Clarke
2018-09-29 13:52:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 29 Sep 2018 06:02:40 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
Quadi, stick to the damned topic. We were talking about a specific
case in which specific testimony was provided under oath. Now you're
bringing in a different unrelated case.
Here is a third case, well known to Canadians, as it received extended coverage
in the news media.
A young woman was raped by four boys at a party, and they took a video of it
with a cell phone and passed it around.
Subsequently, the victim was "slut-shamed" by the other girls in her school.
She committed suicide.
She was drunk, they were drunk, it is not clear that the sex was not
consensual. There was no video, there were photos. What little I can
find about the incident suggests that it was the publicity and not the
sex that led to her suicide.
Post by Quadibloc
Now, I see no problem with taking the four boys who raped her, even if they
weren't sober at the time, and punishing them severely.
How do you know that they raped her? All sex is not rape. Is there
evidence that she did not give consent?
Post by Quadibloc
But what about the girls who later shunned and ridiculed the victim? They did
something wrong that led to the death of an innocent victim.
Perhaps they did not percieve her as a victim?
Post by Quadibloc
But if we throw all of them in jail, with their first parole hearing in 25
years, as would seem to be the least that justice would demand, well, there is a
potential threat to public order. If we have a whole small town mourning its
children, how will the parents of the girl who committed suicide live there in
safety - never mind in triumph and victory, as justice demands?
The thing that clearly was wrongdoing was posting the pictures online.
But you don't seem to want to punish them for that, you are convinced
without evidence that the sex was the wrongdoing.
Post by Quadibloc
Of course, with sufficient repression, their safety could be ensured, but that's
not the sort of life we want for the people of a free, democratic nation!
So *my* question is: how does one temper justice with mercy, and yet still have
justice?
First we recognize where and when the responsibility lies. The
responsibility for the behavior of drunks lies with them before they
started drinking and the responsibility for the behavior of sober
people who intrude into the private demesnes of people who are drunk
lies with the sober people.

If you don't want to have sex with the men you are with, don't chug
vodka with them. When the vodka comes out, leave.
Quadibloc
2018-09-29 13:58:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
The thing that clearly was wrongdoing was posting the pictures online.
But you don't seem to want to punish them for that, you are convinced
without evidence that the sex was the wrongdoing.
The legal system is actually *dealing* with that part of it with some success.
So political activism for change isn't needed here.

And it's not true that there's no evidence that she was raped. She said so, so
we have her word for it. That's evidence, even if not conclusive in itself.

And now that she is safely dead, that closes one avenue for slimy defense
lawyers to try to get their clients off through psychological attacks on the
victim. So it should be *easier* to prosecute for rape now, evne if they felt
they couldn't before.

John Savard
J. Clarke
2018-09-29 14:30:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 29 Sep 2018 06:58:39 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
The thing that clearly was wrongdoing was posting the pictures online.
But you don't seem to want to punish them for that, you are convinced
without evidence that the sex was the wrongdoing.
The legal system is actually *dealing* with that part of it with some success.
So political activism for change isn't needed here.
And it's not true that there's no evidence that she was raped. She said so, so
we have her word for it. That's evidence, even if not conclusive in itself.
""The group began drinking vodka straight. Rehtaeh didn't remember all
of it [but] she remembers a guy leading her up the stairs [and] guys
taking turns on top of her."

When did she say that she was raped and to whom?
Post by Quadibloc
And now that she is safely dead, that closes one avenue for slimy defense
lawyers to try to get their clients off through psychological attacks on the
victim. So it should be *easier* to prosecute for rape now, evne if they felt
they couldn't before.
John Savard
Alan Baker
2018-09-29 21:00:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Sat, 29 Sep 2018 06:02:40 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
Quadi, stick to the damned topic. We were talking about a specific
case in which specific testimony was provided under oath. Now you're
bringing in a different unrelated case.
Here is a third case, well known to Canadians, as it received extended coverage
in the news media.
A young woman was raped by four boys at a party, and they took a video of it
with a cell phone and passed it around.
Subsequently, the victim was "slut-shamed" by the other girls in her school.
She committed suicide.
She was drunk, they were drunk, it is not clear that the sex was not
consensual. There was no video, there were photos. What little I can
find about the incident suggests that it was the publicity and not the
sex that led to her suicide.
Post by Quadibloc
Now, I see no problem with taking the four boys who raped her, even if they
weren't sober at the time, and punishing them severely.
How do you know that they raped her? All sex is not rape. Is there
evidence that she did not give consent?
Post by Quadibloc
But what about the girls who later shunned and ridiculed the victim? They did
something wrong that led to the death of an innocent victim.
Perhaps they did not percieve her as a victim?
Post by Quadibloc
But if we throw all of them in jail, with their first parole hearing in 25
years, as would seem to be the least that justice would demand, well, there is a
potential threat to public order. If we have a whole small town mourning its
children, how will the parents of the girl who committed suicide live there in
safety - never mind in triumph and victory, as justice demands?
The thing that clearly was wrongdoing was posting the pictures online.
But you don't seem to want to punish them for that, you are convinced
without evidence that the sex was the wrongdoing.
Post by Quadibloc
Of course, with sufficient repression, their safety could be ensured, but that's
not the sort of life we want for the people of a free, democratic nation!
So *my* question is: how does one temper justice with mercy, and yet still have
justice?
First we recognize where and when the responsibility lies. The
responsibility for the behavior of drunks lies with them before they
started drinking and the responsibility for the behavior of sober
people who intrude into the private demesnes of people who are drunk
lies with the sober people.
But they're not responsible for the behaviour of the drunks.
Post by J. Clarke
If you don't want to have sex with the men you are with, don't chug
vodka with them. When the vodka comes out, leave.
That is complete bullshit.
David DeLaney
2018-10-09 09:19:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by J. Clarke
If you don't want to have sex with the men you are with, don't chug
vodka with them. When the vodka comes out, leave.
That is complete bullshit.
Exactly. Sorry, J., but you're blaming the victim most enthusiastically.

It is NEVER person A's responsibility to keep, or have kept, person B's dick
in his pants and out of person A.

Dave, consent is key; whether a person can give consent, even legally, can be
a grey/gray issue, alas
--
\/David DeLaney posting thru EarthLink - "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
my gatekeeper archives are no longer accessible :( / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
m***@sky.com
2018-09-29 14:53:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
Quadi, stick to the damned topic. We were talking about a specific
case in which specific testimony was provided under oath. Now you're
bringing in a different unrelated case.
Here is a third case, well known to Canadians, as it received extended coverage
in the news media.
A young woman was raped by four boys at a party, and they took a video of it
with a cell phone and passed it around.
Subsequently, the victim was "slut-shamed" by the other girls in her school.
She committed suicide.
Now, I see no problem with taking the four boys who raped her, even if they
weren't sober at the time, and punishing them severely.
But what about the girls who later shunned and ridiculed the victim? They did
something wrong that led to the death of an innocent victim.
But if we throw all of them in jail, with their first parole hearing in 25
years, as would seem to be the least that justice would demand, well, there is a
potential threat to public order. If we have a whole small town mourning its
children, how will the parents of the girl who committed suicide live there in
safety - never mind in triumph and victory, as justice demands?
Of course, with sufficient repression, their safety could be ensured, but that's
not the sort of life we want for the people of a free, democratic nation!
So *my* question is: how does one temper justice with mercy, and yet still have
justice?
John Savard
One principle to aim for (assisted by objective science, if you can find it) is to establish which policies will minimize the sum of the various contending harms. This may not satisfy people's feeling that some degree of vengeance is called for - for example it seems to favour punishing risk-taking widely with swift and certain but perhaps small penalties over imposing very large penalties on a small number of people when the risks materialise and the offenders then get caught. On the other hand if you find out that your preferred regime in fact produces more suffering than a less satisfying but more measured approach, perhaps you should be rethinking your idea of what justice is.
Quadibloc
2018-09-29 04:30:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Quadi, what does the word "drunk" mean to you?
Here's something that addresses the issue:

https://www.cbc.ca/radio/thecurrent/the-current-for-september-28-2018-1.4842191/research-suggests-double-standard-of-onus-when-alcohol-involved-in-sexual-assault-1.4842235

John Savard
J. Clarke
2018-09-29 13:12:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 28 Sep 2018 21:30:30 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Quadi, what does the word "drunk" mean to you?
https://www.cbc.ca/radio/thecurrent/the-current-for-september-28-2018-1.4842191/research-suggests-double-standard-of-onus-when-alcohol-involved-in-sexual-assault-1.4842235
I didn't ask what someone else thought about it, what does it mean to
_you_? Have you ever _been_ drunk?
Post by Quadibloc
John Savard
Quadibloc
2018-09-29 13:30:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Have you ever _been_ drunk?
No.

I have consumed beverage alcohol, but only in very moderate quantities.

People who _are_ drunk are dangerous menaces who do things like beating their
wives and children. Or causing mayhem on the roadways.

But it is so easy to miscalculate when the wine is flowing freely... so there
are no easy answers. The law where I live makes it clear: drunkeness is not an
excuse. This, in my opinion, has led to injustice in cases where people consumed
alcohol against their will.

But that using an intoxicant creates a risk to those around you, and so one is
responsible for that initial decision - which basically cancels out the
diminished responsibility due to the intoxication when it was entered into
voluntarily - seems reasonable and unavoidable.

Japan, on the other hand, does not hold that drunkeness is no excuse in its
legal system, so other ways of operating are possible.

John Savard
J. Clarke
2018-09-29 13:57:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 29 Sep 2018 06:30:41 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
Have you ever _been_ drunk?
No.
I have consumed beverage alcohol, but only in very moderate quantities.
So you have not experienced intoxication personally.
Post by Quadibloc
People who _are_ drunk are dangerous menaces who do things like beating their
wives and children. Or causing mayhem on the roadways.
Some do. Not all.
Post by Quadibloc
But it is so easy to miscalculate when the wine is flowing freely... so there
are no easy answers. The law where I live makes it clear: drunkeness is not an
excuse. This, in my opinion, has led to injustice in cases where people consumed
alcohol against their will.
But that using an intoxicant creates a risk to those around you, and so one is
responsible for that initial decision - which basically cancels out the
diminished responsibility due to the intoxication when it was entered into
voluntarily - seems reasonable and unavoidable.
So if one locks the doors to one's house before starting to drink, and
if nobody had come into the house after one started, no harm would
have resulted, but some person not present when one started drinking
comes to the door, requests entrance, recognizes that you are drunk,
and decides to get drunk with you rather than leaving, then when they
sober up realize that something that they did not want to happen
happened, who did wrong?
Post by Quadibloc
Japan, on the other hand, does not hold that drunkeness is no excuse in its
legal system, so other ways of operating are possible.
Japan has been a civilized country for a very long time. The West
could learn from them.
Kevrob
2018-09-29 16:04:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
Have you ever _been_ drunk?
No.
I have consumed beverage alcohol, but only in very moderate quantities.
The person who consumes alcohol is often the worst judge of
whether he's drunk, or not.
Post by Quadibloc
People who _are_ drunk are dangerous menaces who do things like beating their
wives and children. Or causing mayhem on the roadways.
But it is so easy to miscalculate when the wine is flowing freely... so there
are no easy answers. The law where I live makes it clear: drunkeness is not an
excuse. This, in my opinion, has led to injustice in cases where people
consumed alcohol against their will.
But that using an intoxicant creates a risk to those around you, and so one is
responsible for that initial decision - which basically cancels out the
diminished responsibility due to the intoxication when it was entered into
voluntarily - seems reasonable and unavoidable.
Japan, on the other hand, does not hold that drunkeness is no excuse in its
legal system, so other ways of operating are possible.
IANAL, but AFAIK, "I was drunk" is not an automatic "get out of
jail free" card in the various United States. It may affect "mens rea,"
but the law is complicated and differs from state to state.

Laws on sexual assault have been changed since the 1980s, and the
notorious sexual offender registry laws were passed in the 1990s.

BTW, the Republicans could lose every House race, but if they
kept their Senate majority they could still be in control of
who gets confirmed for the courts. The House can impeach judges,
who are then tried in the Senate, but it has no role in the
nomination/confirmation process. The GOP is much likelier to retain
the Senate than the House.

Quaddie ought to worry about his own polity's PM, rather than one seat
on his neighbor's Supreme Court. Young Mr Trudeau, being an ally of
statist feminists, will likely survive the accusations of bad _adult_
behavior by Rose Knight, while Kavanaugh, seen as an enemy of the
"progressives," will receive no slack for what he may have done as a minor.

Note that it was Jeff Flake, who isn't running for a new term this
fall, who arranged to have Brett K investigated further before the
Senate votes. Trump fans in his home state won't be able to take
revenge on him for "betraying" them, nor could swing voters put off
by this vile circus punish nor reward him for his position, unless,
as some hope, Flake challenges Trump in the 2020 primaries, or as
a 3rd party or independent choice.

Kevin R















Now, would a normal pol interpret a loss of the House as a clue
that he ought to try to work with The Other Party? Likely, but
Trump isn't "normal" in that way.
J. Clarke
2018-09-29 16:25:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Kevrob
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
Have you ever _been_ drunk?
No.
I have consumed beverage alcohol, but only in very moderate quantities.
The person who consumes alcohol is often the worst judge of
whether he's drunk, or not.
Post by Quadibloc
People who _are_ drunk are dangerous menaces who do things like beating their
wives and children. Or causing mayhem on the roadways.
But it is so easy to miscalculate when the wine is flowing freely... so there
are no easy answers. The law where I live makes it clear: drunkeness is not an
excuse. This, in my opinion, has led to injustice in cases where people
consumed alcohol against their will.
But that using an intoxicant creates a risk to those around you, and so one is
responsible for that initial decision - which basically cancels out the
diminished responsibility due to the intoxication when it was entered into
voluntarily - seems reasonable and unavoidable.
Japan, on the other hand, does not hold that drunkeness is no excuse in its
legal system, so other ways of operating are possible.
IANAL, but AFAIK, "I was drunk" is not an automatic "get out of
jail free" card in the various United States. It may affect "mens rea,"
but the law is complicated and differs from state to state.
"I was drunk" is not, but "we got drunk together knowing this might
happen" might be..
Post by Kevrob
Laws on sexual assault have been changed since the 1980s, and the
notorious sexual offender registry laws were passed in the 1990s.
BTW, the Republicans could lose every House race, but if they
kept their Senate majority they could still be in control of
who gets confirmed for the courts. The House can impeach judges,
who are then tried in the Senate, but it has no role in the
nomination/confirmation process. The GOP is much likelier to retain
the Senate than the House.
Quaddie ought to worry about his own polity's PM, rather than one seat
on his neighbor's Supreme Court. Young Mr Trudeau, being an ally of
statist feminists, will likely survive the accusations of bad _adult_
behavior by Rose Knight, while Kavanaugh, seen as an enemy of the
"progressives," will receive no slack for what he may have done as a minor.
Note that it was Jeff Flake, who isn't running for a new term this
fall, who arranged to have Brett K investigated further before the
Senate votes. Trump fans in his home state won't be able to take
revenge on him for "betraying" them, nor could swing voters put off
by this vile circus punish nor reward him for his position, unless,
as some hope, Flake challenges Trump in the 2020 primaries, or as
a 3rd party or independent choice.
Kevin R
Now, would a normal pol interpret a loss of the House as a clue
that he ought to try to work with The Other Party? Likely, but
Trump isn't "normal" in that way.
m***@sky.com
2018-09-29 05:21:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Cryptoengineer
this is why we have a separate juvenile justice system; we acknowlege
that minors need to be judged differently than adults.
Yes, teenagers make mistakes.
But sexual assault isn't a "mistake". It's a *crime against humanity*.
So, whenever it occurs, the focus should be on effective deterrence - ensuring
that it will NEVER HAPPEN AGAIN, not on rehabilitating the offender.
It isn't clear to me why this is so hard to understand. It should be obvious,
giving the frequently devastating effects of sexual assault on its victims.
John Savard
If you take the evidence for the prosecution at face value and extrapolate from this single example, you're going to end up with some very odd conclusions for public policy. Because a presumably very thorough investigation has thrown up a number of accusations against the accused when they were a youth, but none dating after that time. In this particular case it never happened after this time. The punishment meted out to the offender at the time (which is to say nothing, or perhaps the disapproval of their peers) was apparently entirely sufficient to deter them from any form of further behaviour meriting any disapproval whatsoever.

On the assumption that all men are bastards (at last until some more mature age) we could enforce strict segregation of sexes until this age. This seems a radical policy in the west, but there is a track record of it from other countries and cultures, so it is at least a known quantity.

On the assumption that alcohol is the devil, we could ban it. I don't know that this has ever been successfully achieved, but there is always the line that we didn't try hard enough and that this time it will work. The imposition of a uniformly harsh ban on alcohol and a simultaneous loosening of restrictions on other drugs less strongly linked with violence would at least be novel. I would currently be a supporter of such a policy, having had to work in an open plan office marred by a shrill extrovert who is (now, I realise) particularly loud on Friday afternoons. This Friday the broadcast news included "I've been drinking so now I've got the munchies" which I found revelatory.
Quadibloc
2018-09-29 05:34:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by m***@sky.com
On the assumption that all men are bastards (at last until some more mature
age) we could enforce strict segregation of sexes until this age. This seems a
radical policy in the west, but there is a track record of it from other
countries and cultures, so it is at least a known quantity.
Or perhaps after a certain age as well as before, as segregating the sexes at a
very young age is not needed. Our own culture did this if you go back far
enough. There's an old public school building still standing in our town that
has entrances that say "Girls Entrance" and "Boys Entrance".

However, I am a male human, and I know that *I* wasn't a threat to women in my
adolescence. Therefore, this premise is false.
Post by m***@sky.com
On the assumption that alcohol is the devil, we could ban it.
It's true Prohibition failed. The United States *has* raised the drinking age
from 18 to 21.

An argument for banning alcohol is that some ethnic groups, living in areas with
fresh water, haven't developed a tolerance for it - so legal alcohol, to Native
Americans, is like legal heroin to the rest of us.

On the basis of my reaction to your first suggestion, I would say that perhaps
what is needed is a eugenics program. But it's one thing to eliminate a gene
found in 0.1% of the population some of whose carriers become psychopathic
killers; it's quite another if you're trying to select out from 10% to 75% of
the male population.

John Savard
Lynn McGuire
2018-10-01 02:14:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by m***@sky.com
On the assumption that all men are bastards (at last until some more mature
age) we could enforce strict segregation of sexes until this age. This seems a
radical policy in the west, but there is a track record of it from other
countries and cultures, so it is at least a known quantity.
Or perhaps after a certain age as well as before, as segregating the sexes at a
very young age is not needed. Our own culture did this if you go back far
enough. There's an old public school building still standing in our town that
has entrances that say "Girls Entrance" and "Boys Entrance".
However, I am a male human, and I know that *I* wasn't a threat to women in my
adolescence. Therefore, this premise is false.
Post by m***@sky.com
On the assumption that alcohol is the devil, we could ban it.
It's true Prohibition failed. The United States *has* raised the drinking age
from 18 to 21.
An argument for banning alcohol is that some ethnic groups, living in areas with
fresh water, haven't developed a tolerance for it - so legal alcohol, to Native
Americans, is like legal heroin to the rest of us.
On the basis of my reaction to your first suggestion, I would say that perhaps
what is needed is a eugenics program. But it's one thing to eliminate a gene
found in 0.1% of the population some of whose carriers become psychopathic
killers; it's quite another if you're trying to select out from 10% to 75% of
the male population.
John Savard
Oh give me a break ! My wife is Cherokee so she is an alcoholic
according to you. I can assure you, having been married to her for over
36 years, she is not an alcoholic.

You sir, are a cad and a bore !

I won't even talk about the kind of people who have advocated eugenics
programs in the past.

Lynn
J. Clarke
2018-10-01 02:56:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 30 Sep 2018 21:14:25 -0500, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Quadibloc
Post by m***@sky.com
On the assumption that all men are bastards (at last until some more mature
age) we could enforce strict segregation of sexes until this age. This seems a
radical policy in the west, but there is a track record of it from other
countries and cultures, so it is at least a known quantity.
Or perhaps after a certain age as well as before, as segregating the sexes at a
very young age is not needed. Our own culture did this if you go back far
enough. There's an old public school building still standing in our town that
has entrances that say "Girls Entrance" and "Boys Entrance".
However, I am a male human, and I know that *I* wasn't a threat to women in my
adolescence. Therefore, this premise is false.
Post by m***@sky.com
On the assumption that alcohol is the devil, we could ban it.
It's true Prohibition failed. The United States *has* raised the drinking age
from 18 to 21.
An argument for banning alcohol is that some ethnic groups, living in areas with
fresh water, haven't developed a tolerance for it - so legal alcohol, to Native
Americans, is like legal heroin to the rest of us.
On the basis of my reaction to your first suggestion, I would say that perhaps
what is needed is a eugenics program. But it's one thing to eliminate a gene
found in 0.1% of the population some of whose carriers become psychopathic
killers; it's quite another if you're trying to select out from 10% to 75% of
the male population.
John Savard
Oh give me a break ! My wife is Cherokee so she is an alcoholic
according to you. I can assure you, having been married to her for over
36 years, she is not an alcoholic.
You sir, are a cad and a bore !
It seems that there are some Native American subpopulations that have
different chemistry in their alcohol processing from the mainstream.
However later research showed that that was not generally true of
Native Americans. And in any case alcohol processing is not the whole
story on alcoholism.
Post by Lynn McGuire
I won't even talk about the kind of people who have advocated eugenics
programs in the past.
J. Clarke
2018-09-29 13:19:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by m***@sky.com
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Cryptoengineer
this is why we have a separate juvenile justice system; we acknowlege
that minors need to be judged differently than adults.
Yes, teenagers make mistakes.
But sexual assault isn't a "mistake". It's a *crime against humanity*.
So, whenever it occurs, the focus should be on effective deterrence - ensuring
that it will NEVER HAPPEN AGAIN, not on rehabilitating the offender.
It isn't clear to me why this is so hard to understand. It should be obvious,
giving the frequently devastating effects of sexual assault on its victims.
John Savard
If you take the evidence for the prosecution at face value and extrapolate from this single example, you're going to end up with some very odd conclusions for public policy. Because a presumably very thorough investigation has thrown up a number of accusations against the accused when they were a youth, but none dating after that time. In this particular case it never happened after this time. The punishment meted out to the offender at the time (which is to say nothing, or perhaps the disapproval of their peers) was apparently entirely sufficient to deter them from any form of further behaviour meriting any disapproval whatsoever.
On the assumption that all men are bastards (at last until some more mature age) we could enforce strict segregation of sexes until this age. This seems a radical policy in the west, but there is a track record of it from other countries and cultures, so it is at least a known quantity.
It's not even all that radical a policy in the West. Current dating
customs in which teenagers go out unsupervised is a cultural shift
that seems to have happened some time in the 1920s.
Post by m***@sky.com
On the assumption that alcohol is the devil, we could ban it. I don't know that this has ever been successfully achieved,
Google "prohibition".
Post by m***@sky.com
but there is always the line that we didn't try hard enough and that this time it will work. The imposition of a uniformly harsh ban on alcohol and a simultaneous loosening of restrictions on other drugs less strongly linked with violence would at least be novel. I would currently be a supporter of such a policy, having had to work in an open plan office marred by a shrill extrovert who is (now, I realise) particularly loud on Friday afternoons. This Friday the broadcast news included "I've been drinking so now I've got the munchies" which I found revelatory.
Many companies would have long since discharged such a person.
Quadibloc
2018-10-01 07:16:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Quadi, what does the word "drunk" mean to you?
I came across this video:



Tucker Carlson is indeed correct that making a little joke is not a confession
of felony sexual battery.

However, he omits one very important fact.

The reason that video clip was considered of interest was because it is from a
speech, a transcript of which was submitted to the hearing examining his fitness
for the Supreme Court.

From which that particular joke was... omitted.

And given his testimony about being a quiet model student, not someone with a
drinking habit, that would have raised some questions even without Christine
Blasey Ford.

So I've learned one thing. Tucker Carlson is dishonest. And I'm going to start
taking a hard look at Ann Coulter.

John Savard
Lynn McGuire
2018-10-01 20:54:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On 10/1/2018 2:16 AM, Quadibloc wrote:
...
Post by Quadibloc
So I've learned one thing. Tucker Carlson is dishonest. And I'm going to start
taking a hard look at Ann Coulter.
John Savard
You do that. I am very sure that Ann Coulter cares about your opinion
about her.

Lynn
Quadibloc
2018-10-01 21:59:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
...
Post by Quadibloc
So I've learned one thing. Tucker Carlson is dishonest. And I'm going to start
taking a hard look at Ann Coulter.
You do that. I am very sure that Ann Coulter cares about your opinion
about her.
I am not concerned about making her feel bad. I want to avoid being fooled by
her.

John Savard
William Hyde
2018-10-01 23:14:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Lynn McGuire
...
Post by Quadibloc
So I've learned one thing. Tucker Carlson is dishonest. And I'm going to start
taking a hard look at Ann Coulter.
You do that. I am very sure that Ann Coulter cares about your opinion
about her.
I am not concerned about making her feel bad. I want to avoid being fooled by
her.
You've set yourself the easiest of tasks.

William Hyde
Quadibloc
2018-10-02 02:07:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by William Hyde
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Lynn McGuire
You do that. I am very sure that Ann Coulter cares about your opinion
about her.
I am not concerned about making her feel bad. I want to avoid being fooled by
her.
You've set yourself the easiest of tasks.
It's certainly been easy in the past; I've avoided listening to her or reading
her writings.

John Savard
Loading...