Total posts: 152
Too lazy to proofread
I'm saying it's plausible that since Blacks speed more than Whites, if there is a difference in time wherein speeding is most likely done, this might explain some/all of the difference illustrated in the Texas graph. It's difficult to assess because there isn't data on the time people speed in America that specifically looks at an hour or so before and after dark. The data I found specifically said people usually speed during the morning rush to work, but doesn't comment really at all on any of the other times people speed, yet it remains plausible that people are speeding more an hour before sunset than an hour after because time of day DOES effect the amount of speeding (maybe to collect kids from school, get to the supermarket before everyone else -- we don't know).That's why this speeding variable needed to be controlled for, or else they can't conclude that the results are indicative of racial discrimination.
There are other problems with the inference. When it becomes night some violations are hidden by darkness (e.g. carpool violations, drinking while driving) and other violations become more obvious (e.g. tail light out, headlamp out). There may be some racial correlation with the change in which violations are obvious and which become less obvious. So, day/night may not be the best way to check if officers are using race as a factor in their decisions. That the inference was made in the study.
The data from Stanford is quite extensive. Some of the datasets include the race of the officer. I had hoped that black officers showed different racial biases on the IAT and other tests, but apparently they show the same biases as white officers do. I had thought about a way to check for racial biases in policing that would be a better method than the day/night approach, and I think using the individual officer hash ID's might be the best way provided that other factors could be controlled for (e.g. location, time of day, day of week, type of offense). I would imagine that a racist cop's decisions would stand out in patterns. This would be a lot of data analysis work though.
The overall point of me bringing up these uncontrolled variables is that your paper makes the inductive leap that (1) there is racial disparity in stop rates (veil of darkness argument), and so (2) therefore racial bias exists. You seem to go further and draw the conclusion that systemic racism exists (something the paper doesn't necessarily go so far as to claim). Keep in mind that the paper does go beyond most papers in controlling for variables, but even then it's still not controlling for relevant ones because the inductive leap has such a huge burden of proof. In short, you can't use this paper to conclude that systemic racism exists because of this inductive leap in logic.
Something that's rather difficult about systemic racism is the lack of a working definition for it. I would generally view the "war on drugs" to probably be the best example of it. While your OP focused on the behaviors of blacks that made them more likely to get caught, this is not where you should be looking if you wish to find systemic racism. You should be looking at the policy decisions of those in power and their impacts. Importantly those decisions may not be racially motivated at all a politician's decision is often to do or say whatever he thinks is best for his political career. I encourage you to review this article:
Also, the history of federal crack cocaine sentencing is a good example of how the system can be biased. These articles are a good resource on the subject:
It wasn't until 2010 that the disparities in possession thresholds for cocaine sentencing were somewhat addressed under the fair sentencing act. That Congress was on notice of the problem in 1994 and allowed it to continue for 16 years represents a deliberate failure to act - And why? I surmise that it had to do with political expediency, or perhaps the issue was a legislative bargaining chip that was held up in negotiations.
The entire approach to the drug problem is destructive. Gangs fight over territory, murdering each other. Drug users overdose, now killing 70,000+ Americans every year. Drug users and dealers receive substantial prison sentences, removing them from the workforce and causing them to be a drain on society. The high black market price of these substances is financially devastating to addicts who end up homeless and then turn to property crime as a way to pay for their habits. The cash flow leaves the USA and empowers drug lords, destabilizing other countries. If the production and distribution of these substances were socialized and regulated, one wonders how much of this damage could have been avoided.
I'm imagining the whole thing with the disparities may feed in to itself. Black men sent to prison obviously aren't able to provide for children very well while they're in there and being a convicted felon isn't good for your career prospects. When they get out, they take prison culture with them and contaminate the community with it. In prison one way you protect yourself is by having a reputation for a readiness to resort to violence (i.e. "don't fuck with that guy"; AKA "cred" when they get out) That these things from prison are part of black culture today should be obvious.
And really, these are simply the impacts. Was the war on drugs a racist decision, or any of this legislation inherently racist in the first place? I don't think so. As I said before, politicians are too often indifferent cogs in a racist machine. As crudely explained by a Republican strategist:
legendarily brutal campaign consultant Lee Atwater explains how Republicans can win the vote of racists without sounding racist themselves: You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968 you can’t say “nigger”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Nigger, nigger.” https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/exclusive-lee-atwaters-infamous-1981-interview-southern-strategy/
As you've pointed out, it's just so much easier to catch black people using or dealing drugs than white people because they're doing it out in public on street corners or whatever. Drug crimes are one of the easiest crimes to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. It's so simple. "We found crack in his pocket. Here is the bodycam video. This is the test result. Case closed." OK then - You're running the DA's office and the police department. What are the investigative and prosecutorial priorities? Well in our republic those are going to be set by elected officials, and it's time for us to be "tough on crime" which seems to be a good dog whistle these days. The priority is drugs! More drug arrests. More convictions. Drug abuse violations have consistently been a high priority for policing. (e.g. https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/tables/table-29 - measuring by # of arrests it is usually the biggest category other than "all other arrests"); (also - https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/topic-pages/persons-arrested - see marijuana arrests as about a third)
You're a big fan of studies. I'm sure you're aware of the benign nature of marijuana. It's not killing thousands of people like fentanyl or alcohol do. And yet, it's a huge priority for law enforcement. And why is that? Why does the harm from the drug bear so little relation to the decision to arrest? It's not like the policy makers don't know about it by now. Who is making those policy decisions and why are they doing it? Well, go look at the disparate racial impact and perhaps you have your answer. Democracy appears to be working just as it was designed to. Racial hatred in, systemic racism out; An expression of the will of the people.
Firstly, this doesn't actually (potentially) provide evidence that systemic racism exists. All this data could show is that some people have racial bias. So this is already a non-starter.Secondly, this data (specifically the black-white data) contradicts the overall data on this topic. A meta-analysis of 17 studies found that White people (n=10,435) had a net effect of no discrimination. It also found that Black people (n=2,781) had a "small to moderate" bias in favor of their own race. These sample sizes are far larger than the Pew Study's White (n=328) and Black (n=370) numbers Black and White discrimination in the United States: Evidence from an archive of survey experiment studies (sagepub.com) .Thirdly, you don't have to guess as to whether police officers are biased (based on your Pew Study) because we already have data on this. This study found that police officers were quicker to shoot AND more likely to incorrectly shoot White unarmed criminals than Black unarmed criminals exhibiting the same threatening behavior (here is the relevant data points, since it's paywalled: Imgur: The magic of the Internet ; Imgur: The magic of the Internet ) (sorry it's paywalled: The Reverse Racism Effect: Are Cops More Hesitant to Shoot Black Than White Suspects? | Request PDF (researchgate.net) ) If anything, this shows police are racially biased against White people more than Black people.
I don't really remember what we we're talking about, but I did look at those studies. The Harvard IAT goes a lot faster than those studies and is more casual (if you're familiar with it). Like, if you look at the studies that were part of the meta-analysis and particularly the one with the police simulation you're going to see that they're a lot different in their detection methods. The study participants are heavily primed for what is going on. They know people are watching them and they probably know what they're looking for. They will worry of testing as racist. The Harvard IAT is pushing buttons on a keyboard as fast as one can and really comes across as no big deal / nobody cares.
This is an argument from incredulity as your doubting isn't sufficient reason to believe systemic racism exists to any degree. The default position should be complete indifference, and as demonstrated by all my arguments thus far (including the 5 from the OP), the correct position is to believe systemic racism is a myth.
I suppose I had anti-black racial bias in my mind as a factor. The threshold was not very high. At what point it becomes prevalent enough to be considered "systemic" is unclear.
Created:
Firstly, this is a lazy, garbage way of making arguments. I don't expect anything better from useless, genuine idiots like Reece101, but you've shown that you're capable of actually engaging with the papers themselves. This is quite disappointing.Secondly, you haven't contended with any of the 5 points I made before this, so I guess you agree with all of them.Thirdly, the paper's data you're referencing is actually really good and attempted to control for a lot of the confounding variables. It's a pity that you didn't give the paper the showcase it deserves. You should have linked the whole paper and cited the nationwide statistics, because they better make your argument (rather than the Texas only graph you linked).
Mountain out of a mole hill. All I did was post a link.
Unfortunately, the paper doesn't control for the fact that Blacks are more likely to speed The Racial Profiling Myth Debunked | City Journal | Racial Research (city-journal.org) Racial differences in speeding patterns: Exploring the differential offending hypothesis - ScienceDirect, and speeding tends to happen during the daytime (usually when people are running late for work in the morning: Why Do Drivers Speed? | The Regulatory Review (theregreview.org) ) . Speeding was normalized in this paper, but that doesn't mean it was controlled for relative to time of day, and it should have been based on the evidence of the studies above.
Even if it's true I don't see how that would much of an impact on the Figure 2 graphs in the "veil of darkness" study. The pull overs occurred during the evening after people got off work and such and it had 3 different times (presumably differing sunset hours due to change in the time of sunset over the course of the year). I would be interested in seeing the data from sunrise stops as opposed to sunset stops but I don't see that in the study.
A second variable that was not controlled for was the fact that Blacks tend to live in worse neighborhoods (something the left and right agree on, but happy to source if needed), and thus going out at night in 'the hood' or low SES place is usually not a great idea. So, having fewer proportionally Black people on the road after dark compared to White people due to this fact needed to be controlled for, but wasn't.
There may be data on that, but I don't know where it is.
I encourage you to review this article -
I'm sure you're aware of the implicit association test. The data indicate that about half of whites favor whites over blacks, about a quarter of whites have no preference, and about a quarter of whites favor blacks over whites. In other words, by about 2 to 1, the number of whites who favor whites over blacks outnumber the the number of whites who favor blacks over whites. The decision of a white police officer to pull someone over is a subjective one that is made quickly, and I do not think it even possible for ethnocentric feelings to be eliminated from that decision. That there would be disparities in quick and subjective decisions like these is what I would expect. When a black person is in an environment with white police officers, well that these things are going to happen is just how it is.
I do think there are myths about systemic racism in criminal justice. The myths are simply how substantial a factor is racism. That it is a factor, I do not doubt. Your position seems to be that it's no factor at all, and on the other extreme we have people saying that racism is the sole cause of the observed disparities in outcomes. I doubt either of these positions to be correct. What is more likely is that racism is a factor, and it is something we should try to mitigate, but we cannot blind ourselves to other causes for doing so permits social problems to fester.
Created:
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
the sad thing is i'm not even sure if you are joking or just sharing a fact or being serious in something you fear. given the bullshit stuff people actually believe, i s'pose you might be actually seriously fearful.
I'll bet Israel getting the Pfizer vaccines first fed in to the vast Jewish conspiracy thing.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
I heard the Pfizer vaccine at Costco actually isn't a vaccine at all but is a mind control agent to make people want to vote for Democrats and believe CRT.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
significant financial barriers to entry before you'll ever get a chance to try and "prove" to a judge or jury
Cost of filing and service? Nobody knows my identity here and there isn't anything in the moderation log about me. Even if there were defamation there, what'd be the point? It's a Russian site. The site's domain registrar is based in Russia. Can't levy the domain with an American judgment.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
In order for a plaintiff to prevail in a defamation lawsuit, he or she must be able to show that the defamatory statement damaged him or her in some way. This may be expressed as demonstrating that the damage was significant, quantifiable and documented. If the person who was insulted online was running a business, damages may be shown by the loss of business or profit.
Key words
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
It can't be "libel" if you never reveal someone's legal identity.
Not necessarily. If there are people in the world who already know your true identity then the requirement can be satisfied that way. This is not uncommon.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
self identified conservatives [...] claim that the left just wants to silence their voices [...] The left is not trying to silence conservatives [...] what am I getting wrong?
You generalize that conservatives are alleging that leftists are generally attempting to silence them, and that leftists are making no such attempts. There certainly are conservatives making such allegations, and there certainly are leftists who are not trying to silence conservatives. Yet, the converse is also true. You're going down a rabbit hole of heuristic fiction when both of these groups are composed entirely of individuals. Collective responsibility and pride are equally unsound. The mention of the destructiveness of tribalism is ironic when this perspective is along rather similar lines.
Created:
-->
@Wylted
half of the banned user list is just is just libel anyway
Surprised the site owner puts up with it considering that's the sort of thing that can get the site in trouble. Section 230 doesn't protect sites from defamatory content that's made from people who are acting as agents of the site itself.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Hmmmm...
The default is US law from an IT perspective
Well, OK but even then there's somewhat the problem of which state's law to use. There are other problems as well, e.g.:
- If a user engages [in] criminal activity, moderation shall
- FIRST and FINALLY, issue a permanent ban.
Is this referring to conduct that occurs on the website only? If we're using US law, well possession of marijuana is a schedule I drug. Is anyone who smokes weed now going to be perma-banned?
- If a user promotes criminal activity, moderation shall
- FIRST, issue a 90 day ban
If we're using US law, is anyone who promotes medicinal use of marijuana going to receive a 90 day ban? What about someone who encourages other users to join a public protest which just so happens to be illegal for one reason or another? What of Marxists who promote joining the Communist party which would in violation of 50 U.S. Code § 842? (A relic of a bygone era which has not been held to be unconstitutional except by a single district court which isn't binding) https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/842
- If a user promotes or encourages suicide or self-harm, moderation shall
- FIRST and FINALLY, issue a permanent ban. Moderation shall not tolerate the purposeful endangerment of lives.
What about the legitimate political debate over physician assisted suicide? Is any user who promotes physician assisted suicide to be insta-perma-banned?
IF the user continues to defy moderation [...] they will receive a permanent ban.
This phrase shows up repeatedly. The way this is written implicates that defiance of moderation is what is being punished rather than policy violations. Well, what do we want? Rule of law or rule of men? If the former, then the language should be something like "IF the user continues to violate the policy". If the latter is what's intended, then perhaps leave it be.
Created:
-->
@MisterChris
Lots of ambiguities, like "criminal behavior" without reference to any jurisdiction. Blasphemy and atheism are punishable by death in many jurisdictions. Go criticize the Chinese government, you'll end up in jail in China. Holocaust denialism is criminalized in Germany and hate speech is illegal in the UK. Also no standards for burdens of proof (i.e. degrees of certainty that particular violation actually occurred); Interpreting things in "best interests of the site and users" rather than an objective approach comes across as a license to make language mean what it does not mean. Language should be interpreted based on the objective meaning of it at the time it was agreed to rather than some ex-post facto fluidic "it means whatever we need it to mean at the time"; What's the point of having any written policy if the whole thing is ultimately subordinate to the ever changing interests of the site and users? The policy may as well be that the interests of the site and users are paramount and all other priorities are secondary.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
They were probably better off dead anyway seeing how things are going there.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
From each according to his gullibility, to each according to his ruthlessness
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
just now, for the first time in her life (allegedly) understands that the Holocaust was bad.
I heard that she kept saying thinking the congress members were required to swear on the Christian bible to be sworn in to office and also believes Qanon conspiracy nonsense. These things suggest a belief formation process. She is not fit to be POTUS.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
Plausible causes speculated, including microwaves or ultrasonic waves caused by attacks or malfunctioning equipment. Devices to detect these waves and other proposed causes could be used to investigate.
Created:
-->
@Athias
I am convinced that a great many of the people I know would be substantially better off if they had even a rudimentary education on finance. It's absolutely criminal that our society allows 18 year olds with no assets or income sign up for non dischargeable debt that can reach to the six figures without providing them in their TWELVE years of education the information necessary to understand that decision. These kids are the future, if you cripple them at the beginning of their adult lives, the next generation isn't going to materialize at all.This is the intention after all--the creation of debt slaves.
I think we need to lower the age of consent to 14 for student loan debt. I think 14 year olds possess the requisite mental capacity to understand the consequences of their actions, and who is in a better position than the minor herself to judge whether or not she should enter in to such an arrangement?
Created:
-->
@thett3
They don't really teach people much about relationships in school, either. They do biological sex education but not much beyond that. Strange that so much of life is a competition for wealth and mates yet so little is done to prepare students for that competition. Ever been to a graduation? Listen to the speeches: "Go save the world! You don't matter! We didn't give you an education because we wanted you to have a good life. We gave you one because we wanted you to give a good life to somebody else."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Nothing in that video indicates that milking cows directly causes suffering (i.e. that bovine suffering is an unavoidable incidental).
Created:
Probably. I had zero guidance on that from parents/school and it took me about 5 or 6 years to figure it all out for myself. It was only then that I started to do well financially.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I don't see that milking cows makes them suffer much.I disagree.
Well, I'm just talking about what I see.
I watched the cows getting milked and they didn't seem to be doing anything that would indicate they were suffering.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
ZOIKS.
In all seriousness, there is a lot of value from dairy products. I don't see that milking cows makes them suffer much. Maybe it does in some places, and that's kind of sad. Sometimes the cows do get even. One day a man was sleeping in bed with his wife. Out of nowhere a cow came crashing through the roof and landed on him. The man's injuries were fatal. True story. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/07/15/newser-cow-kills-man/2517321/
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I like this idea.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
People make the exact same argument in favor of owning human slaves.The east india company was "rescuing" the wretched savages from certain doom.
They said they were better off enslaved than in their homelands. Well, as a factual matter that probably wasn't true. In this case of the cows, well they probably are better off existing rather than not existing at all. Though, if their lives are replete with suffering then then those are lives not worth living. Mitigating unnecessary suffering among livestock I think is important. For example, not using carbon dioxide to knock them out for slaughter is significant, and there are plenty of other things that can be done to reduce unnecessary suffering.
Created:
Posted in:
Being on a level playing field mentally creates less opportunity for abuse? So couldn't one infer that abusive relationships among those within the age of majority by its nature is minimized? Do you view this as an accurate gauge? Furthermore, what role does "knowledge of the world" play in having sex? Having sex is not all that complicated.
There is less opportunity to take advantage of someone who is fully mentally equipped. 14 year olds... their brains aren't finished cooking yet, at least not until they're 18 AFAIK. Diminished capacity is a problem not just for younger teenagers but there are other vulnerable people whose lack of wits leaves them weak and vulnerable. Retarded people and the elderly having cognitive decline come to mind. On the other end of the age spectrum we have stupid old farts who have zero sexual capital but tons of money. Scamming old people is a cottage industry these days, and we have plenty of elder abuse laws on the books to protect them from that. These laws don't seem to be working very well though.
So why can't the interactions between a teenager and an adult also be regulated by parental oversight? Why does it require a punitive statutory regime?
Well, a 14 year old usually is dependent on his parents and subject to their oversight. He can be controlled by them. A 25 year old usually is independent and is not subject to parental oversight.
It is the parents' role to look out for their children.That doesn't answer the question. For example, my parents may have looked out for me during my formative years, but that doesn't mean that they knew me better than I did. Why would their looking out for me be more of a testament to my interests than my own word?
Well, you seemed to ask why data and studies would be relevant IIRC. Yes, that question did go unanswered. Suffice to say there exists relevant evidence. Data and studies are usually the type of evidence that I find to be most compelling for policy making issues. Getting in to a discussion over which sort of evidence is relevant isn't really necessary we haven't really looked at any.
As to the latter issue, yes parents make bad decisions when it comes to their children all the time. This is a general problem that isn't really specific to this issue. That children are subject to their parents' poor decision making... I mean what are we to do about that in general? Provide a local appeals board for kids where they can petition to have their parents' decisions overruled? I don't think such a thing would be palatable, and for lack of a better system the status quo should stand.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Well, they only keep producing milk if the farmers keep getting them pregnant (and slaughtering the calves).In other words, every time you buy a gallon of cow milk, you're (implicitly) slaughtering calves.
Have you considered that the they probably wouldn't have lives at all if it were not for the consumption of their products? Are their lives so terrible that they're better off not having existed in the first place?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Not per se. The compelling interest is the protection of a vulnerable group. A 14 year old may take advantage of another 14 year old just as much as a 25 year old may. Though, I'm imagining that the probability is less.So then what informs this statutory division between a 14 year-old and a 25 year-old if the one "taking advantage" is a moot point? You've inferred that the quantification of vulnerability--or at least the quantification of its alleged "probability"--informs this division, but can vulnerability be quantified, much less its probability?
Can't speak for all the legislatures, but one issue is that a 25 year old is usually an independent person while a 14 year old probably is dependent on and accountable to his parents. I mean, I don't see any mechanism outside the law for controlling what a 25 year old does. That, and I'm imagining that there's simply less opportunity for 14 year olds to be abusive with each other because they're more on a level playing field mentally. (not that it doesn't happen) There's also less knowledge of the world and laws and what have you. Teenagers are going to want to have sex with each other and they see each other all the time from schools. I don't see any purpose in having a punitive statutory regime for regulating it when it can already be regulated through parental oversight.
It would simply depend on studies and data,Why would data be required on this? Who's a better informant on his/her own "vulnerability" than the person him or herself?
It is the parents' role to look out for their children.
I've debated on this subject before, and wrote an extensive OA which I think would be pertinent. I warn you: it's quite a read.
RN it's a TLDR. Maybe later.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I wonder what would happen if you gave a cow a button to push that would release the milking machine and open a door for them to wander freely in a field of grass ?
I don't really know, but because of selective breeding (I surmise) the dairy cows make so much milk that they need to be milked all the time or their udders get too full. Then there's injury and pain.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Let me ask: do you object to two fourteen year-olds legally consenting to a sexual relationship?
Not per se. The compelling interest is the protection of a vulnerable group. A 14 year old may take advantage of another 14 year old just as much as a 25 year old may. Though, I'm imagining that the probability is less. So, a precautionary presumption may not apply the same way. For example, mere parental approval may be sufficient whereas the other circumstances a court sanctioned marriage may be appropriate. It would simply depend on studies and data, and I have not taken the time to dig in to that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
And am I to presume that mere sexual interaction in your view between a 25+ year-old and a 14 year-old constitutes "taking advantage" and/or "violation"? Why?
Yes. The presumption is a protective one on the side of caution. There are exceptions to it where, for example, a marriage approved by parents and a court may lift the presumption.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
You sure the courts will let a 13 year old marry someone?But marriage is too binding, regardless of age unless you want to start a family.
For what reason they would or would not, I don't know. Perhaps you should advocate for abolishing the marriage requirement and having merely parental and/or court approval being sufficient. The marriage licensing process does serve as a venue for paperwork evidencing parental permission.
If Spain can let 13 year olds have consensual sex and not have it be classified as pedophilia, I fail to see why the US can't follow suit.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@949havoc
Are you adverse to doing to your own research, or is a spoon considered a valid entitlement?
Googled several searches for news results and didn't find what you were referring to. So now I'm asking. That doesn't make me stupid.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
He acts like it's "his" thread. It isn't, and the implication's pretentious. It's the site owner's site. He's not pursuing truth. He's pushing falsehoods with sophistries. Yet, he actually thinks they're true. It's some species of misguided faith, and it's hopeless. Consider doing yourself a favor and throw him away.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
If I've learned anything from 2020, it was either ANTIFA or Trumpers who did it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@949havoc
Do you have a link to the story
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Every animal that has sex can consent to sex to the best of my knowledge. Moreover, if your against legalizing beastiality because of fears of animal consent, would you also be opposed to drinking dairy (when cows are raped to get dairy and their calves killed) given that there are alternative ways to get all the nutrients that dairy provides?
TBH I don't care much for the animals. They are largely property or free beings in the wild. I'm pretty live and let live. The point at which I would interfere would probably have more to do with suffering than consent. Like, people hitting their dogs for no reason or leaving them tied somewhere without food and water.
Also milking a cow isn't rape. Artificial insemination is more along those lines but it has a clear purpose.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
the animal consents
I doubt animals have the mental capacity. Perhaps some do, like dolphins which are intelligent and apparently are doing sex things all the time.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
I think a 13 year old has much of this same knowledge. They know about pregnency and STIs. I don't think people should have sex at all with a person with an STI, but people have the right to infect themselves with horrible diseases through their sexual choices.
But often they do not, and you did not address diminished mental capacity, nor did you address that much of these sexual freedoms are already possible with a marriage approved by the parents and/or a court, as the case may be. (There are thousands of such marriages in the USA every year). The parents generally play the role of guiding and protecting their children until they fully come of age. That is the general policy. It is in play here is for the same reasons that it's in play when children enter in to contracts. I see no reason to deviate from it when it comes to this.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Children should be protected because they're often sexually naive and innocent.So is a virgin, yet it is legal for a virgin to have sex if they are old enough.
No, that is different. Generally an older person possesses greater mental capacity, maturity and knowledge of the mating market, pregnancy, venereal diseases, and other potential consequences.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Children should be protected because they're often sexually naive and innocent. In many state codes the age of consent may be lowered further (if any) provided that there was a marriage between the individuals approved by the court and parents as in the best interests of the child. This sort of arrangement allows the freedoms you speak of, and it already exists.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Biden left 85 Billion dollars worth of planes and military equipment to the Taliban.
Title to much the equipment was apparently given to Afghan forces during Trump's presidency.
From 2017 to 2019, the United States also gave Afghan forces 7,035 machine guns, 4,702 Humvees, 20,040 hand grenades, 2,520 bombs and 1,394 grenade launchers, among other equipment, according to a report last year from the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction. https://thehill.com/policy/defense/569040-house-republicans-seek-answers-on-us-weapons-seized-by-taliban
What of it was American property? I heard a lot of cars and other vehicles were left at Bagram.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Well, ok, there are other ways to spread it. My concern is that it's going to turn in to an echo chamber if the liberal voices flee.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
You cannot spread the truth if you avoid non-believers.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
People need to wake up and realize that light or dark skin is merely an evolutionary adaptation that has to do with UV rays and vitamin D. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_skin#Health_implications Personally, if there wasn't any racism, having darker skin would be nice for the reduced skin cancer risk.
Skin cancer is the most common malignancy in the United States and represents ~ 35–45% of all neoplasms in Caucasians (Ridky, 2007), 4–5% in Hispanics, 2–4% in Asians, and 1–2% in Blacks (Halder and Bridgeman-Shah, 1995; Gloster and Neal, 2006). The incidence of skin cancer has been increasing among Caucasians (Ridky, 2007), but remains relatively low in people of color. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2757062/
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Spray tanning is one example of this kind of racial hypocrisy; this privilege that white people have of being “black without the burden” – the burden of hundreds of years of living under threat for having black skin. Once you give money to an industry like spray tanning or other self tanners, it’s almost as if the entire history of black face and the ridicule of black people is washed away for your own personal benefit of wanting to look darker without having to be black.
Lol
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
Lol any person who falls for racial guilt bologna is a sucker who deserves to lose. I chuckle at the people being duped. Come on! You really think it's your fault that some person with your skin color did something bad at some point? Suckers and fools.
Created: