Total posts: 4,833
-->
@Stephen
Why hasn't the RC Church sued the makers of the film "spotlight" that tells the story of paedophilia in the Roman Catholic Church? Andwhy hasn't the Roman Catholic Church sued the Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative reporters and The Boston Globe for writing and publishing false and defamatory accusations?Well one reason could be it's almost impossible to win a defamation lawsuit against a journalist expressing opinions on public interest topics .So how possible do you believe it would be for a child and or his family to go up against a powerful and extremely wealthy institution such as the Roman Catholic Church and win?
Your question is complex (the fallacy) because it hides the truth in the details:
What does it mean to "go up against" the church? PR? Civil suits? Demanding settlements? But that is exactly what has been happening, the 'losses' of the church in that regard form the basis of your evidence of a conspiracy.
That is not the real issue. The real issue is that this is an extremely criminal matter perpetrated not by "the church" but by specific persons.
The pertinent question is: How possible do you believe it would be for a child and or his family to report sexual assault by a specific person to the police?
I think that's very possible, and I don't believe the most catholic police force in the most catholic country would refuse to investigate such an accusation. If they did they would be the problem, not the suspect's employer.
Why is it that all of these actions against the church only seem to occur well after the statute of limitations expire (there shouldn't be such a thing in such serious cases)? Or after the accused is dead? Because in civil cases the burden of proof is lighter and you only need a simple majority to win. If they brought the complaint when criminal charges could still be applied the obvious defense would be that the person is innocent.
Another might be the fact that the Church knows they have bad PR and don't want to stoke the flames.And another could be they didn't want to risk the chance of more revelations that would put the "Spotlight" on them highlighting the child sex abuse scandal revealing more child sex abuse in the RC Church and would rather play it down to protect the priesthood.
That is repeating what I said with a spin.
And are you suggesting that the RC Church with nothing to hide and church members to lose (as they have over this and other scandals) wouldn't want to defend their reputation as a stand up, blameless and moral sinless institution?
Well they don't see themselves as blameless, I do. Their greatest mistake in all of this was to give the slightest impression that they were responsible or equipped to handle potential crime "in house" (as the FBI/jury/you put it).
"Ex-Bishop of Albany admits he didn't report child sex allegations made against ELEVEN priests to police or fire them because he wanted to avoid another Catholic church 'scandal'.
Made by people who must have chosen to report only to him and not to the police their belief that crimes had occurred.
Meanwhile, Hubbard testified he didn't report the allegations to law enforcement because he didn't feel he was required by law to do so
That is no doubt correct. The duty, in those cases where it exists is on the witness.
and instead kept the allegations against Bentley, and others, secret
He and every single person who made an allegation. You think that is a coincidence?
On the other hand this Hubbard was himself accused of sexual abuse. Was he obligated to report to the police that someone was accusing him of a crime when the accuser did not?
I can easily see why he might find accusations suspicious if he himself was falsely accused. If you want to assume he's guilty too why in the world would he keep records?
The article says:
[DailyMail] One, David Bentley, admitted to Hubbard that he had engaged in the behavior alleged.
When? What behavior?
If Hubbard heard a confession (not official confession just general confession) and there was an investigation that would be an exception to the hearsay rule and he could be compelled in court to testify. It sounds like a simple police investigation would have stopped Bentley.
[DailyMail] In arguing for the release of the deposition transcript, attorneys for some of the alleged victims had argued that the risk of pre-trial prejudice was no longer valid after Hubbard published an opinion piece in the Albany Times-Union last year in which he defended the diocese's handling of abuse complaints.
So we don't actually have the transcript, this story is based on what the plaintiff's attorneys told the DailyMail.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
So you didn't bother reading the link.It is a good question. Did you research why this is the case?
I'm confident in the dichotomies I established, therefore I won't be accepting homework. Links are there to backup raw evidence not substitute for answers. If he was charged and found guilty then somebody managed to contact the right authority. If the assaults happened but people only negotiated with the church that's their fault. If there was no assault and there was a payout that is just blackmail.
Under no circumstances is the church the appropriate entity to be sending criminal complaints to, and therefore under no circumstances is the church responsible for anything. This is not particular to The Church, Amazon isn't responsible for stopping the crimes of its employees, nor is Disney, nor any other organization not empowered by law to seek subpoenas, arrests, etc... they should not respond to complaints in any way except: Send it to the police, we will always consider our employees innocent until proven guilty.
"Innocent" does not mean "kinda guilty" and so we fire them. Fuzzy logic and justice don't mix.
The FBI did;Church officials followed a “playbook for concealing the truth,” the reports states. The patterns were similar enough that FBI analyses of the church’s responses yielded seven rules, basically, an institutional guide to covering up abuse. Here are seven principles the jurors note:
Jurors? What jurors?
Make sure to use euphemisms rather than real words to describe the sexual assaults in diocese documents. Never say”rape”; say “inappropriate contact” or “boundary issues.”
...Maybe that is what they (church staff) believed the issue was.
Don’t conduct genuine investigations with properly trained personnel. Instead, assign fellow clergy members to ask inadequate questions and then make credibility determinations about the colleagues with whom they live and work.For an appearance of integrity, send priests for “evaluation” at church-run psychiatric treatment centers. Allow these experts to “diagnose” whether the priest was a pedophile, based largely on the priest’s “self-reports” and regardless of whether the priest had actually engaged in sexual contact with a child. When a priest does have to be removed, don’t say why. Tell his parishioners that he is on “sick leave,” or suffering from”nervous exhaustion.” Or say nothing at all.
That is definitely a mistake, just like social media fact-checking they advance themselves in a role they do not belong in and therefore get blamed for being less than perfect. The most the superiors of a clergyman should ever do is inform the man/woman in question that there have been complaints and they should change their behavior.
That is assuming "boundary issues" not child sexual assault. If someone goes to a church official with accusations of sexual assault they should be told to contact the police. If they don't contact the police and continue to talk with the church the only explanation is that they want money. The church can't lock people up. ALL they can do is pay blackmail and move priests around.
Even if a priest is raping children, keep providing him housing and living expenses, although he may be using these resources to facilitate more sexual assaults.
That beggars belief.
If a predator’s conduct becomes known to the community, don’t remove him from the priesthood to ensure that no more children will be victimized. Instead, transfer him to a new location where no one will know he is a child abuser.
... because only priests can go after children? if they defrock him without a trial he's still out there. They move the priest because in their view vicious and unfounded rumors have rendered his service in that diocese useless.
Finally, and above all, don’t tell the police. Child sexual abuse, even short of actual penetration, is and has for all relevant times been a crime. But don’t treat it that way; handle it like a personnel matter, “in house.”
It's not their job to tell the police, it's the job of the witnesses. If I was raped in a Disney parking lot and I reported it only to Disney no one should take my story seriously. Especially if I asked Disney for 5 million USD to keep quiet.
Why hasn't the RC Church sued the makers of the film "spotlight" that tells the story of paedophilia in the Roman Catholic Church? Andwhy hasn't the Roman Catholic Church sued the Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative reporters and The Boston Globe for writing and publishing false and defamatory accusations?
Well one reason could be it's almost impossible to win a defamation lawsuit against a journalist expressing opinions on public interest topics . Another might be the fact that the Church knows they have bad PR and don't want to stoke the flames.
So it will be the fault of children, their parents, the police and the local authorities, and not the RC Church according to your own biases.
According to a sane interpretation of responsibility, not my biases. Employers are not responsible for conducting criminal investigations. The police are not to blame if no one ever informs them. If parents want money more than arrests they are to blame for the lack of arrests. They may not have planned to pimp out their child but the end result is the same.
McCarthy said that despite making some concessions to legal authorities by eventually turning over church recordsThe police do not need to ask for records, if there is probable cause they can get a subpoena.You don't seem to understand how this works do you? You also underestimate the power of the RC Church and you obviously haven't ever heard of penitent privilege.
I think I do understand.
Your quote implied there were records (documents) that were relevant in establishing a crime. That's got nothing to do with penitent privilege. If you're referring to the seal of confessional written records are not made of those conversations. If the seal was broken there would be no confessions, any confessions made in regards to child sexual assault would not make their way up church hierarchy because that would break the seal.
As for this abstract "power", they have money. Just like Amazon has money. The only power there is pay people to keep quiet and that is exactly what your links imply happened.
I suppose it would seem that way... if you were a Roman Catholic.
Or if you're an objective observer. Ratzinger goes along with all the accusations, agrees (against reason) that the church is substantially responsible for policing its clergy, and people still say he's no good? What exactly does a pope need to do? Throw themselves off St Peter's? Or perhaps produce the secret list of pedophiles the conspiracy theorists are so sure exists?
Tell me, do you believe a persons testimony should be taken as truth and at face value?
Depends on the history and context. A random stranger's claim should neither be dismissed nor considered infallible.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
Now college takes high schools place, except it sucks up four more years of adolescence and isn’t free or even close to free.
It's worse, at least high school ends at some point. As long as there is money in it universities are motivated to keep you in the system. They'll shuffle you around different majors and up to PhD till menopause if you let them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
The content which comes up inside any thread, can result in it getting locked.
Yea, but the purpose of a rule is to identify a category of behavior which is not acceptable. Call-out threads can be explicitly allowed and yet locked if the content within them breaks another rule. In that case it is not the call-out nature that is the factor, it is merely a coincidence. The other rule is ideally precisely defined and objectively evalueable.
No-callout threads can be objectively evaluated, I'm just saying if you don't want that rule anymore you shouldn't convert it into something vague... like "callout threads aren't allowed but we'll just let them exist at our discretion"
It seems like the rule is aimed towards getting people to focus on topics of contention rather than each other, it combines with:
obsessive attempts to derail unrelated topics with impertinent grudges
To basically imply that calling someone out is off-topic in threads not about the member and threads about the member where it would be on-topic are not allowed.
This makes some sense in the context of a debate, a fairly large proportion of commonly identified fallacies revolve around ad hominems.
On the other hand if the site accepts that people will try to make the character of members an issue regardless of the rules it could be better to have call-out threads to contain the grudge and continue to prevent off-topic derailments about character. After all a call out thread is the one place where attacking the man would not be a fallacy.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
I will never have anything but the highest suspicion for accusations that were never even reported to police.You are coming across no better than those that preferred to turn a blind eye.
That is likely a result of your biases. The message I'm sending is: Innocent until proven guilty, no matter how angry the crime makes you feel. In fact if you feel very angry you need to be extra careful to be objective.
If it wasn't for ratzinger claiming for the church the role of criminal investigator you wouldn't even have the accusations you have now, yet now you accuse him of being part of the coverup.So I will take it that you are pretending to have never heard of John Geoghan the American serial child rapist and Roman Catholic priest assigned to parishes in the Archdiocese of Boston in Massachusetts.... etc etc...
No I hadn't heard the name before. Was he charged? If he wasn't charged but the evidence was brought to the police then clearly the police are part of the conspiracy and they are the real problem since they (unlike church officials) are subject to democratic power.
“These moments where we know people have done things wrong and we don’t, as a society, we don’t stand up to them, it takes years and years and years and the question is why? Why does it take so long?”
That is a very good question. Even in 1989 dialing the police non-emergency number, explaining the evidence and setting up a meeting with a detective would take less than half an hour. The only plausible reason I can imagine this not happening is that there existed at the time, no compelling evidence.
The Globe’s Spotlight team exposed the attacks over a period of decades by priests in the Boston archdiocese who molested young boys but instead of being reported to the police were given counseling and moved to a different parish.
"Instead of being reported to the police", yea who made that decision? Not someone who had reliable evidence of sexual abuse I will continue to infer.
Team members interviewed victims who were still distraught and disturbed decades later, and established that the Roman Catholic Church had a policy of paying victims to remain silent, and not rock the boat by making their allegations public.
If that could be proven, that's child prostitution, pull the bank records. If nobody reported this at the time, not the church, not the victims, not the victim's parents then the 'victims' were in on the coverup weren't they? Even money did change hands that is far from placing the blame squarely on some secret church policy, clearly the 'victims' wanted money more than they wanted justice.
Suppose the people who arranged this alleged payment in the church honestly believed the accusation was a lie and it was purely a matter of blackmail?
So this theory of the crime can essentially be described as sexual abuse which may or may not have occurred, followed by the parents essentially pimping out their own child by demanding money instead of going to the police. If there was no money on the table (and the parents knew that) then why would they not immediately go to the police? So who is more to blame some cardinals in Rome who probably had no idea about this alleged payout or the parents of the child who were supposed to protect that child caring more about money?
McCarthy said that despite making some concessions to legal authorities by eventually turning over church records
The police do not need to ask for records, if there is probable cause they can get a subpoena.
“Many people left the Catholic faith because of a lot of this and it suffered but I feel like maybe now we can have a discussion with the Pope that’s in…and maybe it could start doing some reparations to the credibility of an institution that has meant a lot to people over the centuries.“I think it’s essential, it must be done.”
That pope would be Ratzinger, the one Brother.D said was covering for pedophiles? Seems like a witch hunt when all roads lead to the stake.
Created:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
The pedophile priests were NOT in prison because the church took care of them and swept their misdeeds under the rug with their own rules.
If there is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt of this, that would be a conspiracy to obstruct justice and is a crime almost everywhere (not always called that). Perhaps you should report it.
I'm afraid that is just a meme.
For the most part, pedophile priests were reported by the parents when little Timmy came home and said his butt hurt after the priest took him into the "Rectory" of the church to talk to him about a secret they were to keep in the name of Jesus! Subsequently, if they had enough complaints regarding the same Pedophile priest, the church would remove him to another parish in the same state, or another state altogether. In other words, the Catholic church allowed their pedophile priests to continue buggering innocent children, and hide said priests at the same time by moving them around the country!
So the theory is that parents of a child suspected their child had received anal penetration from a priest... the priest told the child to keep it a secret, and these parents did not go to the police, they wrote the church a complaint....
No I'm afraid that doesn't add up. The reaction of 99.95% of parents upon such a suspicion being formed ranges between calling the FBI, local, and state police within a one hour period and buying a gun to kill the suspected person.
Being content with leaving a note "BTW maybe this priest violated my kid, could you please make sure it doesn't happen again, thanks :)" to the priest's employer/family (because that is the role of the church to a priest) is not a plausible reaction. If that was the reaction of any parent, that parent is not fit to raise their children because it is extremely well known that upon receiving credible information of a crime the only people who can or should do anything about it are the police.
Read about one of many Popes like George RATzinger who continued to coverup pedophile priests in protecting church leaders ahead of innocent children and other vulnerable people. DISGUSTING!
If it wasn't for ratzinger claiming for the church the role of criminal investigator you wouldn't even have the accusations you have now, yet now you accuse him of being part of the coverup.
A far more likely explanation is that like the confirmation hearings of Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh, and the so called russian prostitutes of Trump there is no firm or reliable evidence and because there was no firm or reliable evidence no police reports were filed and no legal action taken.
The slander and the libel thrives only in the fertile soil of lesser evidentiary standards like gossip, tabloids, and apparently internal church investigations.
I may not always agree with the decision of a jury, but I will never have anything but the highest suspicion for accusations that were never even reported to police.
Created:
One step closer to pinpointing anniversary asteroid awareness day
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@coal
Wylted must have been right, based on your conduct now.
I'd ask you to explain but I know you can't.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@coal
You're defending banning Wylted, because he argued you use beastiality as a pretext to advocate for pedophilia.
Your powers of reading comprehension have not improved over the last decade.
Even more inexplicably, they have recrafted the definition of doxxing to fit Wylted's activity into that category.
Whatever the definition is, Wylted used the word itself. There is no defense except that the CoC is flawed.
And once more, here you are, typing lengthy and verbose arguments for why Wylted should be banned while you claim not to have supported the same?
I will at some point grow tired of correcting you. There were no lengthy verbose arguments to that effect. Post #61 was more abstract background of how I view the purpose of a debate site and the rules that should govern it. You did express confusion about what bans I would support and that was relevant to clearing that confusion. I support bans or threats of bans when the behavior is harmful to debate and never when the behavior can be seen (by a reasonable person) as an attempt to debate.
I neither support nor condemn the decision in Wylted's case because I do not know if he was given a warning or if he has a long history of ignoring warnings. If banning him was the only way to enforce the rule against doxing I support it.
I do not support the banning of anyone based on the moderator's perception of what constitutes an extravagant lie, however I find the defense of Wylted's actions as reasonable to be absurd. I myself would characterize the call out thread as an extravagant lie. Not because I cannot believe anyone might have a very low evidentiary standard when they're fancying themselves on a pedophile hunt, but because Wylted's actions seem calculated to break rules while at the same time having the least chance of entrapping me or actually doxing me.
If people assure me has become very stupid perhaps it is plausible, otherwise I cannot see it as earnest.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@coal
For someone who purportedly didn't support banning Wylted, you sure seem to have a lot of reasons you you think it should remain.
I have reasons you were wrong about the CoC and rather silly in what you considered relevant to the ban. I did not write the CoC and I do not implicitly agree with any of it. If I was writing the rules I would not tolerate doxing as it is behavior that can in no circumstance constitute an argument, I also would also debate nazis and pedophile-apologists.
Debate is something sacred, it's the only way violence or equivalent deception can truly be avoided. Debating people on ice cream flavor accomplishes nothing, debating people on whether you should kill each other at least has the potential to accomplish a lot.
I fully support the doxing being stopped, I don't know if a ban was warranted; for all I know they asked him not to do it again, he refused, and they felt that left them no choice.
I was completely willing to debate him or anyone else (remember he told everyone to debate me "Everybody on this board who cares about children should be defending them to ADOL and engaging his arguments."), just like on DDO I was completely willing to debate you if you had ever cared to do that more than getting me banned.
If I was a mod and it was a ruleset designed by me specifically to facilitate debate the call out thread would have remained, the accusations would have been allowed, but the call to doxing would have been removed. If he refused to stop calling for doxing of course I would have banned him. You can't expect mods to follow someone around fixing their unrepentant offenses.
Furthermore I would have found his claims to be deceptive or else indicative of a disturbed mind. No one in their right mind could seriously have thought they would stop a pedophile by strutting around on a stage asking for personal information in a way that they MUST know broke the CoC. He could have 'accomplished' the exact same thing by PMing only the mods and people who talked to me. Then he wouldn't have been banned, and he might (in his mind) have actually gotten something on me.
If I had to put money on it: he was bored and wanted to see if the perceived nobility of a pedophile lynching would let him get away with breaking the rules.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
All education was most certainly not in the hands of the church before 1960. In fact Dr Franklin educated himself. What is breaking from the American tradition is non-voluntary schooling. I think that's a failed experiment.
Sure kids may need a push, but if they're consistently uninterested; barely scraping by, and grow more and more resentful with each year that's not education that's torture and they will act like someone whose been tortured by society.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Ban appeals serve nothing cause they literally go through the same mods lol.
...After careful consideration the state has determined that the state has done nothing wrong....
Have we ever banned someone for creating a call out thread?
If this is the first time then either it never happened before or the mods weren't enforcing the CoC because it's one of the clearest things in the CoC.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Nyxified
Is that really true? There is only one way to be violent through the medium of the internet and that is to send agents to use violence in real life. The only way to do that is to doxx.If you preclude doxing violence does not seem to be possible.While I understand what you're saying and you're right, it's basically just adding one more step into the process. It goes from harassment --> violence to harassment --> doxxing/acquiring information --> violence.
The problem is this thing "harassment" is not a precise concept, which makes it impossible to objectively evaluate. I have a general idea of what harassment is and that it has no place on a debate site, but I also know that anything vague or subjective which can be used to censor will be used to censor.
If doxing is a necessary step to bring about violence and doxing can be precisely defined and objectively evaluated that is the correct point to create a rule to break the chain of events you describe.
Doxxing creates a chilling effect just like banning for something unprovable like harassment creates a chilling effect. As I alluded to before it depends on what the goal and values of this site actually are. If it's to facilitate debate (true debate, not dick measuring or some kind of high-school sport) then the freedom of speech is the highest value and anything that chills it is a problem.
Perhaps you could come up with a more precise 'legalistic' definition of harassment which could be objectively evaluated. I don't think I could, not without straying too far from the common understanding.
Created:
As we should all be aware, the Catholic church still is in the press regarding pedophile priests, and the history going back to the late 1960’s where under Bishop RATzinger, they ungodly hid the fact that their priests were buggering innocent children, and once caught, they were moved to another church and state in the USA in a “hush, hush” manner which is BLASPHEME to Jesus the Christ!
Just one question, if these priests were "caught" how were they moved by the church when they were in prison?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
Callout threads:What does everyone think of easing up on these? For starters, maybe they shouldn't be automatically locked?
Better banned or explicitly allowed than "case by case", that's arbitrary power and unequal treatment waiting to happen.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@coal
Nor is doxxing "attempted" by certain encouraging statements on that subject Wylted communicated. What in fact happened is that Wylted "request[ed]" information related to potential criminal wrongdoing. That's it.
I didn't ask for this ban, I didn't cause this ban to happen; but I'm going to be correcting some obvious nonsense.
[CoC] Doxing is strictly forbidden. Without their express permission, you may not post, threaten to post, nor encourage others to post, anyone’s private or identifying information no matter how it was obtained.
[incel-chud:] I would also request anyone who is good at doing so, to work on doxxing him [ADOL].
Below you talk about "reasonable" how reasonable is it to interpret doxxing as not doxxing so long as it's passed through PMs? Regardless:
If Doxxing requires (public) posting then incel-chud requested it. If it doesn't require public posting but includes private communications then "Doxing is strictly forbidden" includes it.
There is no way out of this one without equivocation.
"Creating threads to call out specific users." There is no question Wylted's thread related solely to the user purportedly known as "ADreamOfLiberty," but the question is whether what Wylted did was reasonable.
The CoC says nothing about whether it was reasonable.
[CoC] Creating threads to call-out specific users qualifies as targeted harassment
I'll relay what Ragnar told me when I pointed out flaws in the CoC; put it in a MEEP (and then the mods will interpret 'reasonable' the way they want to anyway).
On the one hand, the user purportedly known as "ADreamOfLiberty," is someone who has a repeated history of egregious conduct violations, including based on harassment, over many years and on multiple sites (DDO and DART),
Look whose talking...
can continue to promulgate his "advocacy" for human sexual intercourse with animals --- a highly controversial political opinion.
Oh no, not a highly controversial political opinion on a debate site! THE HUMANITY! A man who believes in an Overton window is a man trapped in a tiny bubble of culture that has only existed for an instant in time and space. This is why teaching history is so important.
While Wylted clearly "called out" ADOL, he did so in a way that would have likely been permitted absent a thread's unique creation. So, to ban him for conduct that is otherwise acceptable simply because it was contained within a thread is reaching.
That is so incredibly ironic given our history. Possibly the most ironic thing I've ever seen. I can't remember if you personally pushed for the "no callout thread" rule on DDO but if you did this is also on the top 10 list of most hypocritical things I've ever seen too.
By that logic, all accusations against a priest who never vocalized his desire to molest alter boys to parishioners can be summarily dismissed.
Lacking any other evidence that is exactly what should happen. And by evidence I mean actual evidence of actual acts, not somebody's opinion on the secret implications of someone's beliefs.
Yet, the thread title was clearly intended as clickbait and not intended to be taken by any rational observer as a statement of proven fact --- as clearly and unequivocally indicated by the thread which followed the title.
The racheal maddow defense..... the thread that followed included a bizarre explanation of how he thought he had shown the thread title to be true, and if the thread title was never intended to represent the truth then from whence comes the "reasonableness" of the call-out-thread and the doxxing?
I am happy to discuss this in more detail if people so wish.
We'll see about that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
What if I said the 8-year-old's inability to properly consent like you describe wasn't enough reason to say that the 30-year-old was being fucked up?
I can't parse this sentence with certainty.
I did not describe in post #45 an inability to 'properly' consent. I described a significant and in-context inherent risk of serious mental harm.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
@TheUnderdog
Oh honey I've interact with kids that have been home school trust me they're illiterate heathens too. Every now and then you get a jam that knows what they're doing but that is few and far between.
Well at least they were cheaply educated illiterate heathens.
There is definitely quite a lot wrong with education in the USA. It costs way more than it should and the results are worse every year. Private school pricing is out of control because of government mandated credit and grants.
Whenever a privilege is considered a right bad things start happening. Food, housing, education, healthcare; always.
I don't think that nothing should be public sector, but no funding should be disconnected from results. Firefighters who start fires should not be paid. Public schools that take dumb kids and turn them into dangerously deluded and possibly gang affiliated dumb kids should not be paid.
Government stealing money and then using it to pay for people's X also does not work. There is a market structure around it, but it's hardly free; it's more like a bunch of parasites suckling at the teat. It creates a vicious cycle. X is hard to get so government starts paying for it, which increases the demand (in the macroeconomic sense) which increases the price which makes it harder to get which makes government pay for more etc.. etc...
Public help must behave like a normal consumer or it will never work. That is it needs to look at the value before buying and shop around.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
top ten states for per-capita social welfare spending
A much more useful ranking would be federal welfare per federal taxes. That would show which ones are spending more than their "fair share". Note that while state and local governments are often the final hands before "helping" people the money often still goes through the federal government and may be redistribution.
i.e. the feds steal from the people of a state through income taxes, then they throw it all in a big pot, and then they hand a lot of money to state governments not necessarily in proportion to the original stealing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Okay, so is a 30 year old 'bribing' an 8 year old to consent to sexual acts something that you think is okay?No.Why?
Such acts, even if consented to at the time, will almost inevitably be seen as predation, degradation, and betrayal as the child matures and thereby the memory becomes traumatic and serious psychological harm occurs, the bribing will extenuate this perception. Furthermore since it is below the age of sexual maturity it will likely disturb the natural formation of the child's sexual orientation and habits which can also be seen as a permanent deformity and compound the suffering.
Like I said in the bestiality thread: duh
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
@TheMorningsStar
[RationalMadman] Hahaha, let's see it happen. I can't wait for America's right wing to go 'oh fuck! All our economic powerhouse states are Democrat or swing states how did we ever think the needy Reds could cope on their own?
See this is why there is hope for a peaceful divorce. Both sides are completely convinced the other side is dragging them down.
[3RU7AL] food and housing assistance cost society LESS $$$ THAN incarceration
... and food and housing assistance aren't taking up 40%+ of the american GDP. That would be failed federal programs including defense spending; now to call them failed might be too generous. As FLRW points out, if they are designed to launder money through corporate contracts they are succeeding brilliantly.
[TheMorningsStar] So often do people in the US want the federal government to take care of everything. Hell, so many on the left keep calling for a national, single payer, health care financing system when basically no country does it that way.
Well you can pull a Solomon and find out who really wants to control others by suggesting they shift their focus to state level away from federal. If they agree they believe their system is stable and beneficial. If they disagree they know that their system cannot coexist with another, and the only reason that would be the case these days is if their system is worse and will cause the state to suffer population and production exodus.
RationalMadman up there is a true believer. The democrat party as a whole is not and they are not willing to let Texas and Florida sit there with their low taxes and four year olds who haven't considered their sexual identity yet.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
Assuming that's true, they have a word for that in other countries: corruption.
The complete solution is complex, but the starting point is starvation. If politicians can't be found who won't steal the people's wealth and launder it through government contracts then reduce the amount of stealing.
Anything really needs to be done can be directly funded by the people, and there is the added bonus of it actually being moral.
Created:
Let me convert this proposal into something more straightforward:
End all federal welfare and proportionally lower federal taxes.
Then blue states can implement the welfare programs they want with their own money. (and red states will still implement welfare programs because they still believe in welfare programs, just not 25% of GDP racist welfare programs)
See there was a system to handle differing opinions between states, it's being strangled by the monstrosity of federal taxes which were never part of the original plan.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
@Nyxified
Nyxified said
A harasser given the opportunity to fester is a time-bomb of violence waiting to happen if they are not cut off from interacting with their victim.
Is that really true? There is only one way to be violent through the medium of the internet and that is to send agents to use violence in real life. The only way to do that is to doxx.
If you preclude doxing violence does not seem to be possible.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
They [children] are not sexual creatures until pubescence, they can understand the physics and consent to the physics but they won't (without bribes) because they have no sexual urges to motivate them.Okay, so is a 30 year old 'bribing' an 8 year old to consent to sexual acts something that you think is okay?
No.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
[RationalMadman] Tell us what you think the real minors are then? How low will you go?Tell us. Smartass.
The age of majority is an arbitrary cutoff of a continuous process of physical and mental development. There is no objective age of majority, at best a bell curve. Determining that bell curve would require a statistical analysis of regret and objectively poor judgement. I am not aware of such an analysis but in my personal opinion 16-24 is the standard deviation for the general culture in countries like the USA, UK, or Netherlands.
The age of majority is not the age at which the capacity consent appears, it is the age at which society ought to consider consent sufficient regardless of harm. A 13 year old can consent to zip-lining down mount Everest, that doesn't mean he should be allowed to by his parents.
I was talking about consent, and any being with a discerning will and the ability to communicate it can consent to anything he can predict/understand. A toddler can consent to getting in his car-seat for instance.
Sex is something humans can understand very young, perhaps 2-4. That does not mean it's something they should be taught. They are not sexual creatures until pubescence, they can understand the physics and consent to the physics but they won't (without bribes) because they have no sexual urges to motivate them. Discussions will hold very little interest to them, and if I ever see a prepubescent child gleefully explaining 'their' sexuality I know somebody has been bribing them with praise or scolding them for showing insufficient interest [and I'm not just talking about pedophiles].
Concern over physical harm and lack of consent are not sufficient reason to condemn sex with minors.He has later gone on to say that while these arguments are insufficient that doesn't mean he doesn't think there are other arguments which are sufficient. Technically grammatically correct I suppose, though he hasn't to my knowledge actually directly said what these hypothetical other arguments might be.
I have in, in brief, the bestiality thread when responding to Lunatic and Swag. If you want to know what I think it may behoove you to ask a question. I have not volunteered because that would be caving to several fallacies of relevance.
If someone wants to claim that my statements on consent and physical harm prove I'm a pedophile I won't indulge them by pretending I have a BoP to disprove that. They can form their flawed arguments, and then I can debunk them.
Furthermore my arguments on consent stand or fall on their own. I know emotionally many feel they need another guardrail to protect their mind from tolerating abused children but I won't indulge that failing. You must pursue the truth earnestly to have intellectual integrity. If a statement throws your world view into chaos you are not entitled to dismiss the statement on those grounds alone. If you can't debunk a conclusion, patch your world view with a better argument or change it.
Created:
Posted in:
@RationalMadman
#1, Laws don't determine reality. If a law says jews are rats, that doesn't mean jews are rats.
#2, You should read your own links: https://www.theweek.co.uk/92121/ages-of-consent-around-the-world, that was also a problem you had in your nuclear debate.
Most countries prohibit sex with under-16s or under-18s, but in some places the age of consent is as low as 11, or as high as 20.
So who are the real minors?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Honestly, America could benefit greatly from a Muslim invasion. We cant even define what a woman is in legal terms.
Most of us can, and the more a certain party is dominated by people who can't the more certain is its downfall. This focus on insane social claims is extremely relieving to me, as long as sex ed for 3rd graders is tied to regulation and taxation (via the silly binding of party platform) I can be confident that regulation and taxation will go down in flames in the next few years... and if it doesn't well there wasn't much hope was there.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
You haven't been keeping up with France have you? They are basically admitting even on the left that they almost destroyed the republic by allowing so many Muslims in who aren't interested in subordinating sharia to the declaration of the rights of man and of the citizen.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Just because you can't think of a good reason besides those not to have sex with minors doesn't mean I can'tNever said I couldn't. I can, but unlike you I would say those two alone are sufficient.
They're sufficient if they are present. If you think they must always be present you are incorrect.
You didn't continue this discussion with me, fine you don't have a duty to debateIf you want to debate the resolution "Physical Harm and Lack of Consent are Sufficient Reasons to Condemn any Sexual Act" then send the challenge and I will accept it.
I won't do debates with a scoring system. If you care about the the truth you don't need a popularity contest. You may resume in the thread in which you brought it up.
Furthermore that resolution is merely a repetition of your misrepresentation of my position. At no time did I say or imply that physical harm or lack of consent are insufficient reasons to condemn a (specific) sexual act for which there was physical harm or lack of consent.
I said that those are not sufficient reasons to condemn ALL sex between minors or between minors and adults because not all such acts require physical harm or lack of consent.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Well ADOL did say that "concern over physical harm and lack of consent are not sufficient reason to condemn sex with minors" so... yeah, he seems pretty openly pro-sex-with-minors.
That is not what I said. I said if there is consent, and there can be consent, that is not a reason for condemnation. I said if there is no physical harm, and there need not be physical harm, that is not a reason for condemnation.
That is not openly pro-sex-with-minors. Just because you can't think of a good reason besides those not to have sex with minors doesn't mean I can't; and my reasons happen to reflect reality as can be proven by argument and evidence.
You didn't continue this discussion with me, fine you don't have a duty to debate, but if you go around misrepresenting my position of course I'm going to correct you no matter which thread you do it in.
I don't see Wylted's use of the term "pedophile" as a shorthand for that as being too far off the mark grammatically speaking.
Nor does QAnon see the use of the term "pedophile" as shorthand for "democrat" to be too far off the mark but you're both mistaken to the point of libel.
The fact that Wylted didn't have a video of ADOL having sex with a kid seems pretty irrelevant to that point.
Or any evidence, or any sound or strong arguments towards that end at all.... It occurs to me that if you define pedophile as - anyone who disagrees with my exact reasons for a blanket condemnation of sex between an adult and a minor, that means to me you're a pedophile; right?
Created:
-->
@Double_R
Republics can be democracies of the elite council ultimately derives its authority from the general population and democracies can be republics if the general assembly are willing to completely delegate to an elite council for a set amount of time.
Democracies need not be a republic, as was the case with Athens was [during the democratic golden age]. Elite councils in Athens were often only empowered because everyone else had other things to do. The boule of 400 could be overridden simply by showing up.
Rome was not a democracy but it was a republic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
And I did confirm it with the mods (specifically WF). You never said anything, nor did they ask you.
I see, then I retract my comment.
The point of this was that the mods (primarily Ragnar, even though he’s not technically a mod) are power hungry and want to be activists, rather than follow the code and it’s natural intent
You could argue "natural intent" till the cows come home. All you have objectively is the code as it is written and like many regulations and petty laws it's subjective terms wrapped in vague generalizations. It thus allows enormous leeway for arbitrary decisions. In other places such as the brainstorming thread and my introduction I've pointed out the absurdities a literal application of the CoC produces.
So they may be activists (you haven't shown they are) but you are going to have a hell of a time proving they aren't following the code. They could probably ban everyone who has posted in this thread right now based on the CoC.
I’d argue that the code ought to be applied objectively.
Best you can hope for with this CoC is for equally ignored implications.
I did a quick google of "Title IX" and I'm pretty sure that you would need a dangerous amount of drugs to think anything in that code created a duty for someone arguing on the internet to take onto themselves an investigation based on assumptions.You misunderstand what it means to be a mandatory reporter. If I hear someone has been raped, even if it’s proven to be false, I have an obligation to report it. And that’s essentially what Wylted would be doing.
I'll need a citation for that. All I'm finding is regulation related to college campuses. https://www.justice.gov/crt/fcs/TitleIX-SexDiscrimination Is this a college campus? No it is not.
No Wylted/incel-chud would not be reporting a rumor. He originated the claim. Does he have an obligation to report claims he's fabricated?
If you really believe you are legally required to report reports of rape (double report intended), then <sarcasm> I'm telling you that wylted raped Genghis Khan. Once you're done reporting that I got plenty more for you. Wylted is one sick time traveling rapist... I heard he kept an alien when he was in the guard. </sarcasm>
This hardly sets a precedent of keeping your mouth shut, you said "the police", did he get banned for talking to the police? No, he got banned for acting like the police.Are you saying he should’ve called 911 and said I think ADOL is a pedophile? That’s more of spam.
No I'm definitely not saying he should have called the police with that. I'm saying that if he had something that could ever possibly be useful to the police in preventing a objectively immoral crime he should provide the police with that information. He should not call the police with delusions, baseless accusations, etc... He should also not make baseless accusations on forums.
He had nothing. No evidence of crimes, no information to give, he couldn't even demonstrate the two essential claims that I was a pedophile or would ever seek sex with a minor. With tips like those the police don't need spam calls.You’d be surprised how many times “minor” tips have lead to large scale takedowns.
If the minor tips are baseless as Wylted's accusations were then it is by definition a coincidence if they lead to takedowns.
You could be a pedophile. If you’re not, you have nothing to fear.
What rock have you been living under? There is plenty to fear from baseless investigations. The investigation itself is used as evidence for defamation, sometimes the investigators plant evidence, sometimes people are so emotional that they convict you even when there is reasonable doubt.
I have nothing to fear because I'm anonymous. I would have an enormous amount to fear otherwise, my trust in the justice system and my fellow citizens when taboo sexual matters are at issue is 0/10.
If Wylted had the intention of posting your information on this site, or give it to the media, or to your boss, I would 100% support the ban. However, as a responsible, concerned citizen, he has a duty to do what he did, even if he’s wrong. If you see something, say something.
But he didn't see anything, he fabricated; and he said something in the public square not to any relevant authority because he knew they couldn't possibly do anything but laugh at his fiction.
He definitely broke the CoC by explicitly encouraging doxxing (using those words exactly). If you don't support the ban for that reason then you don't support the CoC which is fine by me but just so it's clear.
You may trust him with my information, but I don't. Would you trust me with your information? Right so maybe the doxxing rule does make a bit of sense, because the site is about debating and not trying to swat each other.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
@RM, the only rule that could possibly apply would be:
[CoC] Without their express permission, you may not post, threaten to post, nor encourage others to post, anyone’s private or identifying information no matter how it was obtained.
However my sexual orientation cannot be claimed to be private when I have publicly disclosed it before.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
@ILikePie5
@Mharman
[Polytheist-Witch] The problem is is some people get banned for harassment and some people don't.
Yes that is exactly the problem. If a tyrannical rule is enforced equally people are generally quick to unite and stop it. It is the unequal application of rules, or rules that only matter to minorities that lead to stable oppression.
That's true for forums, towns, counties, states, nations, and planets.
[Mharman] I don't care if ADOL isn't offended (although I don't know why you still want someone on the site if they tried to doxx you)
His attempts to doxx were doomed to fail, I was not concerned about that, I was and still am flabbergasted. We were PMing and although I think it's against the rules to release the transcript he said a lot of things which seemed off, sometimes oddly friendly in one instance and then denouncing. He seemed to have me confused with someone else he remembered. I don't think he's in a healthy state of mind. People on medications and off medications can behave very erratically.
If he genuinely believed his accusations you would think he would at least make some attempt to get a confession of something out of me before he made them publicly.
What I want in general (on a debate site) is to debate. He claimed he wanted people to confront me and address my beliefs but he himself did not do so publicly. I think the rules of a debate site should be designed to facilitate debate.
Doxing and all this talk of criminal behavior have no utility towards that end. Minimizing spam, including harassing spam, does. That isn't an easy thing to do objectively, one man's spam is another's perfect argument. As hard as it would be to implement, the principle would be "if you're trying to make an argument and the argument isn't an extraordinarily obvious fallacy, it's permitted no matter what."
So if someone wants to dox me and it's no real threat but they also are willing to debate I don't want them gone. I definitely don't want them to be forced out. However I am not the only interested party. I am probably the only member that has no realistic fear of being doxxed. What happens if he takes upon himself more investigations? Even the mere accusation sent to an employer can be an big mess to sort out.
[Mharman] The dude encouraged doxxing of another user! I don't care if ADOL isn't offended (although I don't know why you still want someone on the site if they tried to doxx you), if Wylted gets away with it, he's going to keep doing it.[ILikePie5] When have you seen Wylted ever do what he did. Even the mods admit what he did wasn’t based on malice of any kind. As a mandatory reporter of Title IX, if I see something, I say something. It’s not like Wylted was going to post it on the site for everyone to see. He was gonna give it to the police. This sets a precedent that if you think someone may commit a crime, you have to keep your mouth shut and let it happen.
There are quite a few problems with this description. First "based on malice", you ever heard the saying "Most of the evil in this world is done by people with good intentions"?
Everybody is the good guy in their own opinion, it is such a universally true factor that to believe it has any relevance betrays a shallow understanding of ethics in human society/history.
I did a quick google of "Title IX" and I'm pretty sure that you would need a dangerous amount of drugs to think anything in that code created a duty for someone arguing on the internet to take onto themselves an investigation based on assumptions.
This hardly sets a precedent of keeping your mouth shut, you said "the police", did he get banned for talking to the police? No, he got banned for acting like the police. He had nothing. No evidence of crimes, no information to give, he couldn't even demonstrate the two essential claims that I was a pedophile or would ever seek sex with a minor. With tips like those the police don't need spam calls.
When have you seen Wylted ever do what he did
Well you just said "he did", so you know he just did it. What is the point of saying this? That he's not a repeat offender for doxxing so it's no big deal?
[Mharman] Besides, I don't think Wylted cared whether or not ADOL was offended by it. His intent was to harm another user of feign doing so by trolling. Either way, it crosses the line.[ILikePie5] But did ADOL care? Did he report it to the mods? Not that I know of. If someone doesn’t want help, then why do the mods have to be activists and ban them. That’s literally what dictators do. Feign “help”
So you made all these threads based on a narrative you hadn't confirmed? You happen to be right in this case, I did not report the thread or ask for any help; but it sounds like you could easily have been wrong.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
@ebuc
Ok that was funny.And also to the point of a being truth regarding narcissism.I like pie, and who doesnt? However, after 5 large pieces of pie, we may appear a little on the greedy side of life.
That is less funny, for one you seem to have narcissism and gluttony confused.
Created:
-->
@ebuc
Everything I stated is true, to the best of my ability to attain truth from writings of others.
Then your English reading comprehension is too poor to allow for rational discussion. I am not engaging (at this time) with all that stuff about Reagan, Nixon, "Trumpeteer" or anything else. You claimed that I respect people who obstruct truth-finding, that is not what I said. I said I respect people who apply principles consistently.
I did not say then, but I will say now that I respect to an even greater degree those who apply the correct principles consistently.
Since you're having trouble understanding the point I will restate it more directly: Anyone who complains about missing evidence against Trump is a hypocrite if they also suggested that missing evidence in the form of ballot mailer correlation, registration records, signature matching (and so much more) must be tolerated.
Here is the respect hierarchy:
Greatest: Someone who believes government should be transparent and verifiable; and would find it equally intolerable that call logs are missing as they would election laws are ignored and ballots rendered unverifiable after the fact.
Medium: Someone who believes questioning any government they deem to be "democratic" to be an endorsement of dictatorship; and would find it equally tolerable that call logs are missing as they would that election laws are ignored and ballots rendered unverifiable after the fact. "How dare you question elections" = "How dare you question the democratically elected president"
Lowest: Someone who claims to believe government should be transparent and verifiable; but only applies high standards of verifiability and transparency when it would gain a political advantage for their tribe. They would consider missing call logs to be proof of the conspiracy of a traitorous president if they did not care for that president. If on the other hand an election is run in an illegal and unauditable way, but the outcome appeared favorable to their tribe, they would claim that questions are treasonous and that trusting the people who would be suspect is a duty.
Created:
-->
@ebuc
I did not go to your link. I skimmed through what was written and I believe the your approach via your words is short sided, as it a narrow set of either or, with context of so much more that needs to be considered.
It was either nuclear or the alternative zero CO2 options in that debate, hence that is the context in which analyzed.
Nuclear and fossil energy sources both have issues. In short run, nuclear adds less to the greenhouse gas issues and that is huge gain for what is obviously occurring.
It isn't so obvious to me.
However, lets be clear, that, if the atmosphere is already over a certain critical limit ---and I believe it is--- what does not appear to be alterable in Earths biosphere future fro some many --if not hundreds of years--, then nuclear alone, is again, a short sighted{ not comprehensive } approach.
That does not follow. If the utility would persist for dozens of times the operational life of a construct there is no shortsightedness in building that construct.
When you bake a pie are you shortsighted because that pie will rot in less than a month? Of course not, it will be eaten in less than a month and it will thus be fully utilized.
Any nuclear reactor we build now, excepting a truly absurd focus on longevity, will have fuel for its entire lifespan.
You complained of "either or", outside of the context of that debate it should be obvious that in terms of research there is no such dilemma. If we don't try our best to improve all potential designs for all potential energy sources we will never know what the mature technology could achieve and thus never know what the correct answer in the long term is.
In terms of immediate construction, where finite resources must be allocated (money), nuclear is the objectively correct choice.
Fossil fuels are more efficient (in terms of human effort and that is what price reflects), but even now we see the volatility of that market. It is much much easier to stockpile large amounts of nuclear fuel to stabilize the market.
In the debate rationalmadman claimed that thorium had better alternative uses. That isn't true for thorium, but it may well be true for oil. It can be used to create plastics which are some of the most stable building materials imaginable. We should be using plastic for permanent constructs, the current trend of using the most permanent material for the most disposable items is quite foolish. Oil also gives gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel. Despite improvements of batteries they still offer significant advantages to vehicles. It would be better not to waste oil on grid electricity when it should be reserves for plastics and vehicle fuel.
For those who are not familiar with my political ethics I would never suggest using force to prevent these things I am calling less than ideal or foolish. I would bring about the reallocation of oil to its ideal use cases by making the incorrect uses obsolete. I would invest in very large nuclear reactors that produce so much electricity that it would be wasteful to burn oil/gas for it.
This would bring down the price of oil and thus the price of plastics and travel.
With a sufficiently cheap electricity very high temperature furnaces could destroy plastic waste without long chains or smogish compounds and thereby recycle the carbon.
Hydropower is great, almost no downsides but it is being (nearly) fully utilized. It doesn't enter the conversation because we have done what we can in that area.
Solar power is simply unrealistic. Even if it was 20 times cheaper per panel (and it would need to be to compete with nuclear), it takes up an enormous amount of space. I have no objection to covering almost lifeless deserts and people's rooves. When it comes to blocking light that plants could use I object. Plants are far more useful/beautiful than the equivalent area of solar panels.
Wind power is fringe, as I said much better wind generators could be designed; and they would probably pay for themselves eventually; but they are an even weaker version of hydro. If they are placed in places without consistent high winds it is a waste of time and effort.
Geothermal has a very large potential for generation. It is also technically not renewable in the same way fission is technically not renewable. [recall I would define renewable as fusion derived power].
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
And I would suggest that you "involuntarily participate" when it doesn't suit you, and actively participate when it does suit you.
I thought that is what I said.
And taxation probably suits no one, but we all reap and expect the rewards of taxation.
Can't have your cake and eat it too. If the benefit is greater than the expense it would suit many. The only reason force is required is because many people would decide the benefit does not warrant the expense in many instances.
A slave on a slave plantation in the old american south is fed, clothed, and housed using the money made by his involuntary labour. He may reap and expect the rewards of slavery, but that does not mean it is not slavery, and it does not mean slavery is the only way to get food, clothes, and housing.
Or are you another anarchic, hunter gathering hermit?
I am someone who rejects the dichotomy. Liberty and civilization aren't opposites, liberty and slavery are. Slavery is and always has been a cancer on civilization, impairing it, impoverishing it, corrupting it.
I am not against law, I am against unjust law. I don't have to go live in the woods, the people who feel entitled to extort their peers do.
Created:
-->
@ebuc
Your approach is not comprehensive i.e. it only considers energy needs for 7.6 billion people and rising, and does not consider, neccessary global changes in society to address the amount of energy needs, if society makes the appropriate changes to require less energy and be happy in the processes to lead to a balance existence with our ecological landscape of Earth.
I am more than happy to debate this subject with you, but we should be clear that you are addressing my beliefs and arguments and not those of the debate linked to in the OP.
Created:
-->
@ebuc
[ADOL] I respect someone who applies the same principles to both presidential call logs and ballot verification.You respect some who obstructs truth findings in government and private business. Your another one of the 60 million USA Trumpeteer supporters of Jan 6 insurrectionist and their non-sense conspiracy ideas.
Well that strawman is so obvious I don't need to go into any details beyond restoring the sentence you 'edited'. You know incel-chud had this amazing idea to simply doctor quotes, you could try that next time.
Created:
-->
@thett3
@3RU7AL
@zedvictor4
@Nyxified
[thett3] Instead of futile attempts to change the sex of confused children and teenagers we should focus on providing them with a positive self identity based in reality as it is, and not how they wish it was. If an adult still wants to take opposite sex hormones or do an operation...well I have my thoughts on if that's ethical. I don't think surgically removing healthy organs is medically ethical--but at least it's between consenting adults.[3RU7AL]The claim is unsubstantiated. Professional organizations such as the Endocrine Society recommend against puberty blockers for children who have not reached puberty, and recommend that patients be at least 16 years old before beginning hormone treatments for feminization or masculinization of the body. The last step in transitioning to another gender, gender reassignment surgery, is only available to those 18 and older in the United States.[ADOL] This is permanent mutilation before the age of maturity.[3RU7AL]this claim is demonstrably false
I've recreated the context above. You may have been talking only of HRT from 16+, but I was also referencing what thett3 was talking about. Even if it isn't being done right this very moment that is where things are headed fast.
I also would need to see the demonstration that HRT for 16-24 year olds does not represent a permanent mutilation. There is still a lot of growing and sexual dimorphism yet to develop at 16. The only reason to start young is because once that growth happens it won't reverse. The inverse is almost certainly true. Once the growth is prevented, it will never restart.
[ADOL]Legal standing is whatever a judge says it is.[3RU7AL]not exactly"legal standing" is required for one party to bring a case against anotherthe plaintiff must make some attempt to demonstrate how the activity of the accused has harmed them in some material wayfor examplechris rock has legal standing to press charges against will smithyou do NOT have legal standing to press charges against will smith (unless you have also been assaulted by will smith)
I'm sure you have noticed that the plaintiff in all criminal cases is some gigantic collective like "The city of Chicago", the "State of Texas", the "United States of America" often shortened to "the people".
That implies that everyone in a society has "standing" to attack potential criminals, and that every crime including child abuse is harm to society. Chris Rock has standing to pursue a civil case. He has none in a criminal case. Everyone in that room through some abstraction and prosecutor representing that abstraction have the standing to go after Smith. They don't need Rock's permission.
I do not endorse this formulation, it is incomplete; it's certainly not all wrong though. People do have a right to defend each other just as surely as they have a right to defend themselves.
[ADOL] If children always knew when they were being harmed and reported it, they wouldn't need so much protection. They don't.[3RU7AL] this isn't even close to being truei personally know individuals who were quite brutally abused, and reported it to the proper authorities who promptly told them to "shut-up" and after being sexually assaulted by the police, then forcibly returned to their abusive parents
Look at what I wrote. That does not imply that children never know when they are being harmed. An example of a child knowing they were being harmed and reporting it does not then disprove my statement.
[zedvictor4] What is "The State"?A lot of people around here often refer to "The State" as if it's something that they are completely separate from.
In this abstract case it refers to any mercenary organization people may hire/command to enforce their code of social morality. I know I participate in the state involuntarily through taxation and voluntarily through voting and referendums.
[thett3] What do you make of the huge increase of teens identifying as trans?[Nyxified] We stopped murdering trans people, mostly. And also started giving would-be trans people the knowledge of what it means to be trans and that other people are like them.[thett3] So then where are all the 50+ people coming out as trans?
That is a highly relevant question thett.
I have to disagree with that statement about murdering trans people reflecting reality, I am not aware of any exception in murder statutes or state sanction executions based around gender claims. At least not in the USA or modern Europe.
Created:
I find this ironic, because even if the call logs were missing, if there was a gap; what would that prove?
Surely lack of evidence is not evidence right?
...but when data goes missing that should be there, when audits are deflected, when systems to ensure integrity are set aside it's a bit suspicious isn't it?
I respect someone who applies the same principles to both presidential call logs and ballot verification. If you say that questioning the lack of evidence which most certainly should be there in one case is treason against democracy I expect the same stance for the other.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
How do you know?Because one is a sample of the other.
No, you don't understand.
R = number of actual rapes
Rr = number of reported rapes
C = number of rape convictions
Cf = number of rape convictions that were false, they were innocent for whatever reason
Ct = number of true rape convictions
E = number of rapes that went unpunished, (no conviction, maybe not even arrest)
Crev = number of rape convictions that were reversed
You were conflating Crev with Cf. You don't have a way to know Cf even statistically. Some things you know:
R - E = C
C = Cf + Ct
Crev <= Cf (if you trust the reversal process is perfectly accurate)
If America won't give the homeless free stuff
But it does... that was the point, if it was less wasteful with government spending it could give the homeless more, granted.
Created:
-->
@Mharman
Easier said than done for me, google hates Tor.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
You don't know how many are false, all you know is how many were reversed.The proportion is roughly the same.
How do you know?
But our murderers are treated better than homeless people.
That is a separate issue from how certain your are that people are guilty.
There are programs that give the homeless free housing and food. I could direct you to at least three places in my own little city that help the homeless.
It's amazing how many people don't seem to realize this. I've volunteered at places like that, almost everyone I've met would not be able to integrate with society if you gave them a house. Yes they would have a house, but they wouldn't get a job. If they were psychologically capable of holding down a job they would have somewhere to live.
No homeless people in America are starving, if they would stay in a little concrete box you made for them that could easily be funded. They won't.
[this is from relatively short conversations granted, but it is borne out by more rigorous study, it was a good time for the labor market when I did this; during a recession or depression there would obviously be far more 'normal' people on the street.]
------------------------
As for this notion that it's expensive to shoot someone, come on think about it for one minute. The holocaust would never have happened if that was fundamentally true.
It's expensive because we're making it expensive on purpose. It's a stop gap measure because of conflict over the issue.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
Can you demonstrate that corporations are formed for any other purpose often enough for it to warrant a response within this conversation?
I deny that any particular frequency is required to warrant making that point. I wouldn't have given such a silly example as the cotton candy if I was talking about prevalent examples.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
That's oversimplifying it a bit. The state does get involved when there is a very strong claim of harm to the child. That also the root claim of anti-abortion stances.are the children claiming "harm" ?are the parents of the children claiming "harm" ?who has the legal standing to claim that someone unrelated to them is being harmed ?
Legal standing is whatever a judge says it is. They made up the concept out of whole cloth. They would claim the government has a compelling and narrow interest in preventing the abuse of children. That's how social services work.
If children always knew when they were being harmed and reported it, they wouldn't need so much protection. They don't.
This is permanent mutilation before the age of maturity. I believe strongly that a great number of these children will decide between the ages of 25 to 35 that they were indoctrinated, lied to, and abused. They will suffer serious psychological harm. At @thett3 points out in there are already some examples.
I agree with your baseline bias though. It's a very slippery slope letting government (or anyone else) interfere with interactions that are fully consensual. In the case of children though the precedence has long been established that they are not responsible for their decisions. So long as society sends that message children will be traumatized by perceived harm that could have been avoided by adult veto no matter what those children agreed to at the time.
At this risk of triggering Incel-chud this is the reason underage sex is an inexcusable risk of harm. Children are sponges, you can indoctrinate them into almost anything if you start young enough. It's not something to experiment with lightly and permanent surgery which removes the opportunity to live a normal natural life sure as hell counts as something they may consider harmful later.
It would be interesting trying to formulate moral principles for this situation.
Created: