Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
Customize
User Settings
Styles:
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:

Regularly scheduled events

User information for Ask Me

Real Name Ask Me   
Search for:
 
Sort results:   Ascending Descending
Limit results:
 
 
 
Nickname Scheherazade
Email Concealed by request - Send Mail
Description
Homepage None given.
Signed On Feb 28, 2001, 23:01
Total Comments 371 (Amateur)
User ID 9185
 
User comment history
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 ] Older >


News Comments > Sunday Legal Briefs
49. Re: Sunday Legal Briefs Sep 27, 2018, 02:52 Scheherazade
 
jdreyer wrote on Sep 26, 2018, 13:54:
@Scheherazade
I'm listening to the Teacher's Pet podcast. 30 year old PE teachers (former footballers) were banging their 15 and 16 year old students. These guys were tall, handsome, and athletic and completely glammed the girls. The women are still messed up today by it, even though it was what they "wanted" at the time.

While I agree that for a case where consensual sex with a 17 year old gets you decades in prison is too much punishment, your recommended punishment seems too little. One reason many states choose strict liability in these cases is that "I thought she was 18!" has been the mantra of pedos for eternity. It might seem unfair, and there's probably a bit of "think of the children!" mixed in there, but that's the law in the vast majority of states.

You're right that a jury can be convinced or decide not to convict. But prosecutors will instantly appeal the verdict. What are the chances of convincing two juries in a row?

Finding a balance between protecting children from predators, and letting children explore relationships and their sexuality is tricky. I don't think we're there yet, and the law needs to catch up, especially where technology is concerned.




I honestly don't know if it can be balanced at a group level. Individuals are so different.

I can only speak from my own experience. I concede that it's but one HS in a country of schools.

1) I get that there are cases where 'a young innocent impressionable doe eyed girl gets scammed by an evil sinister older pervert'.
In my HS experience, I never met one. I don't doubt they exist. (Plenty of girls were scammed by evil sinister same-aged perverts)

2) I did meet a small gaggle of dirty predatory young girls who were anything but innocent. Girls who liked fast money and got off on the power trip of being able to manipulate thirsty older men. If you called them victim to any of their old acquaintances, you wouldn't get anything but eye rolls and sighs.

I hope society can get to the point where there is room to recognize that both these types of people exist, and relations with one is not the same as relations with the other.

For a girl registered on 'sugardaddyme' and arranging dates with older dudes, I wouldn't assign her as a type (2) without knowing her circumstance, but I wouldn't assume a type (1) either.





I don't know what to think of the 'teachers pet' example.
At my HS, I heard of 2 girls sleeping with teachers. I didn't know them personally (not in my circle of friends). IIRC the teachers were young.
Never heard of any drama coming of it. It was an open secret.
(Those are the 'and 2 others' in my earlier post. I generally don't mention them because, being outside of my circle, I had no way to measure their characters to tell if the talk had any merit. It could have been pure B.S.)

Another way to look at the 'teachers pet' thing is :
Summary : A bunch of Chads pumped and dumped some young girls and the girls are upset about it.
If the girls were older, would that make them ok with being dumped?
If they weren't dumped, would they even be upset about it?
How much of the "harm" is the events/actions themselves, and how much is sheer regret? Is their regret any more significant/meaningful than the regret of 18+ year olds that deal with the same thing?

Tons of 18+ year olds get the same treatment and are driven to some sort of borderline personality disorder from it, and no one cares one bit.
People just mock them with shit like "That's what you get for chasing the bad boys". The same sorts of people that throw a virtue signaling fit when the same thing happens to a person just on the other side of an arbitrary and capricious age line in the sand.
It all looks way too arbitrary and inconsistent to me.





I also wonder how much the parental factor taints the rhetoric.
How many kids get caught 'messing around', and then play the victim just to get their parents to stop shitting on them (to get out of trouble)?
How many victims were manufactured by victim rhetoric drilled into them by adults in the aftermath?





A person's useful lifespan is about 40 years, after childhood and before being an old fart.
What percentage of that is worth losing?
Considering that you lose your car, house, owe back taxes and interest, etc, while you're away. Effectively erasing earlier year's work and effort.

Keep in mind that statutory rape is nothing like rape.
Rape is forced, with one participant in terror (assuming awake).
Statutory rape has willful participants that are happy to be there.
How much life should someone lose for a practically-consensual (albeit not legally-consensual) act, where an uninvolved 3rd party comes along to condemn it by statute in spite of the individual wills of the participants?





I think this stuff is too multi-faceted to paint with one kind of brush.


-scheherazade

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Sunday Legal Briefs
47. Re: Sunday Legal Briefs Sep 27, 2018, 01:08 Scheherazade
 
Dacote wrote on Sep 26, 2018, 14:03:
Scheherazade wrote on Sep 25, 2018, 22:29:
Technically, his "choice" was to sleep with an adult.

In the same way that when you buy a sack of flour at the grocery store, you did not choose to buy a brick of cocaine.

Purchasing flour is legal, paying for sex is illegal.
Your analogy, much like the rest of your argument, is seriously lacking.

Well, paying for sex *should* be legal, but that's another issue entirely.
(As should be all matters where all directly involved parties give consent. It's nobody else's business.)



In the case at hand we're in the 'sugar daddy' stage, which is below escort, which is below prostitute.
It's closer to the Japan style paid friend sort of relationship.
Most sugar daddy relationships are just pathetic old simps that fund some young girl's jet setting party lifestyle for a smile and a kiss on the cheek.

If sex isn't obliged by payment, it isn't prostitution.
That's why these services even exist out in the open. They are perfectly legal - assuming everyone is of consenting age.
It's a point that is critical here and shouldn't be willfully omitted.


We're talking about a situation where an otherwise legal event took place, where one party presented themselves as something other than what they really were.

-scheherazade


 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Sunday Legal Briefs
46. Re: Sunday Legal Briefs Sep 27, 2018, 00:56 Scheherazade
 
jdreyer wrote on Sep 26, 2018, 13:33:
Mr. Tact wrote on Sep 25, 2018, 14:25:
Scheherazade wrote on Sep 25, 2018, 13:53:
The jury can still decide whatever. The jury is a direct representative of the state, and can nullify any law the government writes. It's the most important democracy preserving check/balance we have, because it's the only chance for direct democracy in our society to check the actions of representatives who do not represent the state's will. That's why the jury must be made of your peers, so that your peers can judge you by the standards of your society, not by the standards of any other. It's a shame that (and also obvious why) the government does its best effort to hide this part of our democracy.
-scheherazade
Yes, a jury "can" do that, they are not supposed to. They swear to follow the law. Think of all the southern juries who didn't convict white men (who were clearly guilty) of crimes committed against blacks.

Think of juries today that refuse to convict police for excessive force for killing unarmed people.

That has mostly to do with corruption in the grand jury stage, and in jury selection, where both prosecution and defense work together to acquit. The entire process is in bad faith.

-schehreazade
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Sunday Legal Briefs
41. Re: Sunday Legal Briefs Sep 26, 2018, 12:15 Scheherazade
 
Orogogus wrote on Sep 26, 2018, 11:51:
Scheherazade wrote on Sep 26, 2018, 11:26:
My GF when in her mid 20's looked like a middle schooler. Movie theaters didn't want to let her in (not hyperbole, she would actually get stopped. I witnessed it first hand). Does that make me a pedo?

Or how about the two daughters of a coworker who I saw at work one day and thought they were new employees, because they looked like they were a good few years out of college (looked older than me for sure). Turns out they were ~16. I guess every 20-30 something that hit on them was a pedo, right?

I knew a girl in HS who was 16 and lied about being 18, so she could work at a strip club, because she left behind a shit home life and went out on her own early. I guess you can pull up receipts and charge every worker and customer at the establishment as a pedo, right?
Boy, wouldn't that be a fun unexpected surprise for them : "Hi, we're the police. Surprise! You're a pedo!"

None of those examples mention anyone actually having sex. And it seems to me in the first example that you're the one who would theoretically have a problem with it, since you're the one looking at it from the point of view of intent.

Is your argument that we shouldn't have age of consent laws, or that the laws set the age too high? Everyone knows that there's no magic change at age 16 or 18 or whatever, and that it can be a fuzzy line, but you seem to be taking an extreme position with no boundaries.

The law has no problem treating "kids" this age as "adults" when charging them with breaking into a house, or robbery, or whatever

At least where I live, the media isn't allowed to name minors for these crimes, they go to juvenile court, where punishments are less severe, and I think the court seals their records so it gets wiped for most purposes once they turn 18. They're treated significantly more leniently.

You're projecting. I had no problem with any of it. I don't trespass.

The stripper case is live porn. "Kiddy porn".
Also, you omitted quoting the other cases where there was sex.


I make no argument. I share a personal case study. Integrate that information how you wish.






But since you're asking :

[edit, I thought about it more, and have adjusted my approach]

This section has some spit-balling. Just thinking of what I would suggest if I were in the position to suggest.

I think that 'non-coerced consent' should not be subject to age discrimination.

What that means in practice : I would have kids take a comprehension test every year in school. Once they pass, they demonstrate understanding, and are auto emancipated.
Someone without a passing test can not give consent that (for legal purposes) counts as non-coerced.

I would keep the current pedo laws, but apply them to any mismatched sexual couples (one has passed the test, the other not). That would make it less arbitrary/discriminatory.

So then that leaves defining coercion. I would differentiate between direct and indirect. Direct being criminal. A 'consent or be trespassed on' situation.
"So this or I beat you", would be direct coercion.
"Sleeping with this person might get me raise", would not count as direct coercion.
Proving those sorts of things without FPV is pretty much impossible. Not sure how much it would matter in reality.

(I can think of corner cases all day, so I prefer some universal abstraction that can encapsulate it all.)






Courts can do whatever. Judicial immunity makes it a matter of whim. Some are treated as kids and get almost nothing, some get full adult punishment.

-scheherazade

This comment was edited on Sep 26, 2018, 12:46.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Sunday Legal Briefs
38. Re: Sunday Legal Briefs Sep 26, 2018, 11:26 Scheherazade
 
Beamer wrote on Sep 26, 2018, 07:13:
Scheherazade wrote on Sep 25, 2018, 22:29:
Beamer wrote on Sep 25, 2018, 15:27:
Scheherazade wrote on Sep 25, 2018, 14:37:
Beamer wrote on Sep 25, 2018, 14:14:
Scheherazade wrote on Sep 25, 2018, 13:53:
Beamer wrote on Sep 24, 2018, 07:27:
Scheherazade wrote on Sep 23, 2018, 23:06:
jdreyer wrote on Sep 23, 2018, 17:49:
Scheherazade wrote on Sep 23, 2018, 15:37:
article conveniently left out details.

They met on sugardaddyme.com, where she was registered as 18.

And the sex is optional, not quid pro quo.

-scheherazade

For better or worse, her lying is irrelevant in the eyes of the law. All the law cares about is did he bang her (yes) and was she underaged (yes).

Maybe. He did consent to having sex with an 18 year old, not a 16 year old. We'll see how the jury takes it.

-scheherazade


First off, you're giving him a benefit of the doubt here. Do you give women the same when they claim they were raped? Or do only men get it? How do we know he didn't know she was underage?

Second, doesn't matter for the jury. Texas is a strict liability state, like most states, meaning what matters is the fact that he had sex with a minor. Not a single other thing matters. On appeal, he can make a strong argument based on some prior cases in Texas, but in front of the jury, they'll be instructed that what they're ruling on is solely if sex happened while she was underage, not what either was thinking when it did.

I'm a pure empiricist. Act on the physical evidence, nothing else.

I don't separate men/women for legal purposes. It's just people.

The jury is a direct representative of the state, and can nullify any law the government writes. It's the most important democracy preserving check/balance we have, because it's the only chance for direct democracy in our society to check the actions of representatives who do not represent the state's will. That's why the jury must be made of your peers, so that your peers can judge you by the standards of your society, not by the standards of any other. It's a shame that (and also obvious why) the government does its best effort to hide this part of our democracy.

-scheherazade

The jury cannot nullify a law. The appellate court can change the impact of laws, but the jury cannot. The jury is there to decide if the law was broken, not how the law should be applied, not if the law should be applied, and not if the law is just.

A jury trial is about facts, just facts. They determine what happened, and fit it into the boxes defined by laws. An appellate court is about process and laws, and where arguments such as "it's ridiculous to hold someone accountable for something they did not know they were doing" comes up. As I mentioned, it's come up in Texas many times, and Texas is starting to lean towards "that can be true," but still closer to "it's more reasonable for an adult to be responsible for his actions than for a child to be."


It a jury could not nullify a law, there would not be a word for it.

Let's be honest...
A causality chart and informed statistical analysis would beat any jury.

-scheherazade

The Supreme Court has upheld informing juries that they cannot determine law and cannot nullify law. There have been occasions where they've refused to find someone guilty even though they agree he did the charge, but this has almost always been slave law. In some cases it is drug law.

In general, it's very progressive people finding their side to, if you excuse the cliche, the right side of history. Sorry, finding a pedophile innocent will never be something on the right side of history, and you won't find 9 to 11 people willing to agree that a pedophile is innocent because a law is unfair. He chose to sleep with a child.

Technically, his "choice" was to sleep with an adult.

In the same way that when you buy a sack of flour at the grocery store, you did not choose to buy a brick of cocaine.

-scheherazade



Fine, factually, he slept with a child. Have you slept with a child? I certainly haven't.

My GF when in her mid 20's looked like a middle schooler. Movie theaters didn't want to let her in (not hyperbole, she would actually get stopped. I witnessed it first hand). Does that make me a pedo?

Or how about the two daughters of a coworker who I saw at work one day and thought they were new employees, because they looked like they were a good few years out of college (looked older than me for sure). Turns out they were ~16. I guess every 20-30 something that hit on them was a pedo, right?

I knew a girl in HS who was 16 and lied about being 18, so she could work at a strip club, because she left behind a shit home life and went out on her own early. I guess you can pull up receipts and charge every worker and customer at the establishment as a pedo, right?
Boy, wouldn't that be a fun unexpected surprise for them : "Hi, we're the police. Surprise! You're a pedo!"




For that matter, the age discrimination and infantilization that comes with sexual matters is in itself infantile.

In HS I knew a girl who was sleeping with a ~60 year old doctor. Because she wanted nice things. She was not coerced or tricked into anything, she was the one that targeted a dude with money.

In HS I knew a girl who would pick up older dudes because that's what got her off. She was not coerced or tricked into anything, she was the one going out looking for them.

(and 2 more in HS)

The law has no problem treating "kids" this age as "adults" when charging them with breaking into a house, or robbery, or whatever. "You are old enough to know what you are doing".
But when it comes to anything sex related, the prude culture kicks in and people go all "Oh you poor little girl, what did the big bad man do to you?" - to the same damn age people.

Maybe it's just hard for older people to consider a young girl as a hoe, if they themselves have kids that age, and can't imagine their own kids getting it on.
I watched an interview lately with random young girls on the street and they were asked when they first had sex. The mode age provided was 13.
I still remember being in HS, and I sure as hell knew a lot of hoes. I also remember knowing exactly what I was doing.

Maybe it's a mix of hubris and poor memory+Dunning-Kruger that makes adults assume kids are inept automatons that are just tricked by adults into everything.

Yes, brain studies show people's cognition changes until they are past 25. But put that into perspective : For most of human existence, rarely did people live to see even 40 years of age. Even at the turn of the last century, a 16 year old would be married with children and have their own home and be working for some years already. The brain of a young person is what as been considered adult for 99.9999% of human existence.

The mood around talking about it feels like an "emperors new clothes" type situation to me. Maybe people are just afraid to admit reality because they don't wanna run afoul of the culture.


Actually, one of the biggest discoveries I made growing up, was discovering that adults are just children in bigger bodies.
They pick up more information with age, the trials and tribulations of life tear down their enthusiasm, and emotional ups and downs anneal their emotional responses, but their character is hardly changed since childhood.
Every time I watch adults squabbling over some B.S., I just imagine them being kid sized, and their behavior is a perfect match.


Anyways, my 2c.

-scheherazade

This comment was edited on Sep 26, 2018, 11:40.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Sunday Legal Briefs
37. Re: Sunday Legal Briefs Sep 26, 2018, 11:00 Scheherazade
 
Sepharo wrote on Sep 25, 2018, 23:29:
You say you're a "pure empiricist" but then make your arguments about intent...

edit: Damn didn't notice that RedEye basically said the same thing.

Empiricism is about what can be proven with physical evidence.

2 points of empirical evidence provided to the public so far :

1) There is electronic video record of him meeting up with her.
2) There is electronic log data record of her lying about her age.



They key to me is that his choice to sleep with an 18 year old was in his control.
The girl's choice to represent a 16 year old as an 18 year old was of out of his control.
Morally, people should be responsible for their own actions, not for other people's actions.


That's why I made the sack of flour analogy.
If you buy a sack of flour, but you get a sack of cocaine, do you wanna go to jail because someone else stuffed cocaine into a sack that presented itself as flour?

-scheherazade

This comment was edited on Sep 26, 2018, 11:44.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Sunday Legal Briefs
33. Re: Sunday Legal Briefs Sep 25, 2018, 22:29 Scheherazade
 
Beamer wrote on Sep 25, 2018, 15:27:
Scheherazade wrote on Sep 25, 2018, 14:37:
Beamer wrote on Sep 25, 2018, 14:14:
Scheherazade wrote on Sep 25, 2018, 13:53:
Beamer wrote on Sep 24, 2018, 07:27:
Scheherazade wrote on Sep 23, 2018, 23:06:
jdreyer wrote on Sep 23, 2018, 17:49:
Scheherazade wrote on Sep 23, 2018, 15:37:
article conveniently left out details.

They met on sugardaddyme.com, where she was registered as 18.

And the sex is optional, not quid pro quo.

-scheherazade

For better or worse, her lying is irrelevant in the eyes of the law. All the law cares about is did he bang her (yes) and was she underaged (yes).

Maybe. He did consent to having sex with an 18 year old, not a 16 year old. We'll see how the jury takes it.

-scheherazade


First off, you're giving him a benefit of the doubt here. Do you give women the same when they claim they were raped? Or do only men get it? How do we know he didn't know she was underage?

Second, doesn't matter for the jury. Texas is a strict liability state, like most states, meaning what matters is the fact that he had sex with a minor. Not a single other thing matters. On appeal, he can make a strong argument based on some prior cases in Texas, but in front of the jury, they'll be instructed that what they're ruling on is solely if sex happened while she was underage, not what either was thinking when it did.

I'm a pure empiricist. Act on the physical evidence, nothing else.

I don't separate men/women for legal purposes. It's just people.

The jury is a direct representative of the state, and can nullify any law the government writes. It's the most important democracy preserving check/balance we have, because it's the only chance for direct democracy in our society to check the actions of representatives who do not represent the state's will. That's why the jury must be made of your peers, so that your peers can judge you by the standards of your society, not by the standards of any other. It's a shame that (and also obvious why) the government does its best effort to hide this part of our democracy.

-scheherazade

The jury cannot nullify a law. The appellate court can change the impact of laws, but the jury cannot. The jury is there to decide if the law was broken, not how the law should be applied, not if the law should be applied, and not if the law is just.

A jury trial is about facts, just facts. They determine what happened, and fit it into the boxes defined by laws. An appellate court is about process and laws, and where arguments such as "it's ridiculous to hold someone accountable for something they did not know they were doing" comes up. As I mentioned, it's come up in Texas many times, and Texas is starting to lean towards "that can be true," but still closer to "it's more reasonable for an adult to be responsible for his actions than for a child to be."


It a jury could not nullify a law, there would not be a word for it.

Let's be honest...
A causality chart and informed statistical analysis would beat any jury.

-scheherazade

The Supreme Court has upheld informing juries that they cannot determine law and cannot nullify law. There have been occasions where they've refused to find someone guilty even though they agree he did the charge, but this has almost always been slave law. In some cases it is drug law.

In general, it's very progressive people finding their side to, if you excuse the cliche, the right side of history. Sorry, finding a pedophile innocent will never be something on the right side of history, and you won't find 9 to 11 people willing to agree that a pedophile is innocent because a law is unfair. He chose to sleep with a child.

Technically, his "choice" was to sleep with an adult.

In the same way that when you buy a sack of flour at the grocery store, you did not choose to buy a brick of cocaine.

-scheherazade

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Sunday Legal Briefs
30. Re: Sunday Legal Briefs Sep 25, 2018, 14:49 Scheherazade
 
Mr. Tact wrote on Sep 25, 2018, 14:25:
Scheherazade wrote on Sep 25, 2018, 13:53:
The jury can still decide whatever. The jury is a direct representative of the state, and can nullify any law the government writes. It's the most important democracy preserving check/balance we have, because it's the only chance for direct democracy in our society to check the actions of representatives who do not represent the state's will. That's why the jury must be made of your peers, so that your peers can judge you by the standards of your society, not by the standards of any other. It's a shame that (and also obvious why) the government does its best effort to hide this part of our democracy.
-scheherazade
Yes, a jury "can" do that, they are not supposed to. They swear to follow the law. Think of all the southern juries who didn't convict white men (who were clearly guilty) of crimes committed against blacks.


The jury not simply people. It is a direct state representative. They are the highest authority in the room.

-scheherazade
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Sunday Legal Briefs
29. Re: Sunday Legal Briefs Sep 25, 2018, 14:37 Scheherazade
 
Beamer wrote on Sep 25, 2018, 14:14:
Scheherazade wrote on Sep 25, 2018, 13:53:
Beamer wrote on Sep 24, 2018, 07:27:
Scheherazade wrote on Sep 23, 2018, 23:06:
jdreyer wrote on Sep 23, 2018, 17:49:
Scheherazade wrote on Sep 23, 2018, 15:37:
article conveniently left out details.

They met on sugardaddyme.com, where she was registered as 18.

And the sex is optional, not quid pro quo.

-scheherazade

For better or worse, her lying is irrelevant in the eyes of the law. All the law cares about is did he bang her (yes) and was she underaged (yes).

Maybe. He did consent to having sex with an 18 year old, not a 16 year old. We'll see how the jury takes it.

-scheherazade


First off, you're giving him a benefit of the doubt here. Do you give women the same when they claim they were raped? Or do only men get it? How do we know he didn't know she was underage?

Second, doesn't matter for the jury. Texas is a strict liability state, like most states, meaning what matters is the fact that he had sex with a minor. Not a single other thing matters. On appeal, he can make a strong argument based on some prior cases in Texas, but in front of the jury, they'll be instructed that what they're ruling on is solely if sex happened while she was underage, not what either was thinking when it did.

I'm a pure empiricist. Act on the physical evidence, nothing else.

I don't separate men/women for legal purposes. It's just people.

The jury is a direct representative of the state, and can nullify any law the government writes. It's the most important democracy preserving check/balance we have, because it's the only chance for direct democracy in our society to check the actions of representatives who do not represent the state's will. That's why the jury must be made of your peers, so that your peers can judge you by the standards of your society, not by the standards of any other. It's a shame that (and also obvious why) the government does its best effort to hide this part of our democracy.

-scheherazade

The jury cannot nullify a law. The appellate court can change the impact of laws, but the jury cannot. The jury is there to decide if the law was broken, not how the law should be applied, not if the law should be applied, and not if the law is just.

A jury trial is about facts, just facts. They determine what happened, and fit it into the boxes defined by laws. An appellate court is about process and laws, and where arguments such as "it's ridiculous to hold someone accountable for something they did not know they were doing" comes up. As I mentioned, it's come up in Texas many times, and Texas is starting to lean towards "that can be true," but still closer to "it's more reasonable for an adult to be responsible for his actions than for a child to be."


It a jury could not nullify a law, there would not be a word for it.

Let's be honest...
A causality chart and informed statistical analysis would beat any jury.

-scheherazade
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Sunday Legal Briefs
26. Re: Sunday Legal Briefs Sep 25, 2018, 13:53 Scheherazade
 
Beamer wrote on Sep 24, 2018, 07:27:
Scheherazade wrote on Sep 23, 2018, 23:06:
jdreyer wrote on Sep 23, 2018, 17:49:
Scheherazade wrote on Sep 23, 2018, 15:37:
article conveniently left out details.

They met on sugardaddyme.com, where she was registered as 18.

And the sex is optional, not quid pro quo.

-scheherazade

For better or worse, her lying is irrelevant in the eyes of the law. All the law cares about is did he bang her (yes) and was she underaged (yes).

Maybe. He did consent to having sex with an 18 year old, not a 16 year old. We'll see how the jury takes it.

-scheherazade


First off, you're giving him a benefit of the doubt here. Do you give women the same when they claim they were raped? Or do only men get it? How do we know he didn't know she was underage?

Second, doesn't matter for the jury. Texas is a strict liability state, like most states, meaning what matters is the fact that he had sex with a minor. Not a single other thing matters. On appeal, he can make a strong argument based on some prior cases in Texas, but in front of the jury, they'll be instructed that what they're ruling on is solely if sex happened while she was underage, not what either was thinking when it did.

I'm a pure empiricist. Act on the physical evidence, nothing else.

In this case, at this moment in time, in public we have record of her lying about her age, and record of him having sex with her. Do with that what you will.

I don't separate men/women for legal purposes. It's just people.

The jury can still decide whatever. The jury is a direct representative of the state, and can nullify any law the government writes. It's the most important democracy preserving check/balance we have, because it's the only chance for direct democracy in our society to check the actions of representatives who do not represent the state's will. That's why the jury must be made of your peers, so that your peers can judge you by the standards of your society, not by the standards of any other. It's a shame that (and also obvious why) the government does its best effort to hide this part of our democracy.

Look at ex Virginia gov Bob McDonnell. Convicted of a felony which didn't even exist on the books in VA (receiving gifts), and never providing any service for those gifts (required for federal corruption), released later on appeal, ultimately with the DOJ getting involved and dismissing the charges. Anything can happen when it's up to people's whim.

-scheherazade

This comment was edited on Sep 25, 2018, 14:19.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Sunday Legal Briefs
25. Re: Sunday Legal Briefs Sep 25, 2018, 13:28 Scheherazade
 
Creston wrote on Sep 24, 2018, 14:15:
DangerDog wrote on Sep 23, 2018, 15:01:
16 will get you 30, unless you're a female school teacher diddling a student.

A female teacher at my wife's school was actually arrested for this just a few months back, and while she's still awaiting trial, they are apparently going to throw the book at her. She's looking at 20-30 years, for having sex with a 17 year old male student.

So no, this has nothing to do with being a male or female. It's ludicrous in both situations.

That's insane. Way out of proportion.

IMO :

If it's statutory rape (i.e. participants were willing) : Fired, and 2 months community service, no registration, records sealed.

It it's rape (assuming without battery, eg. fucking a passed out drunk): Fired, 2 years prison, registered sex offender.

It it's rape (with battery, eg. violent): Fired, 4+ years prison, registered sex offender. (+more time added on top for the battery itself. +more for maiming, etc.)



People get less for burning a person's face, which no amount of zen meditation can ever erase. Shit's irrational.


-scheherazade

This comment was edited on Sep 25, 2018, 13:49.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Sunday Legal Briefs
18. Re: Sunday Legal Briefs Sep 23, 2018, 23:06 Scheherazade
 
jdreyer wrote on Sep 23, 2018, 17:49:
Scheherazade wrote on Sep 23, 2018, 15:37:
article conveniently left out details.

They met on sugardaddyme.com, where she was registered as 18.

And the sex is optional, not quid pro quo.

-scheherazade

For better or worse, her lying is irrelevant in the eyes of the law. All the law cares about is did he bang her (yes) and was she underaged (yes).

Maybe. He did consent to having sex with an 18 year old, not a 16 year old. We'll see how the jury takes it.

-scheherazade

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Sunday Legal Briefs
7. Re: Sunday Legal Briefs Sep 23, 2018, 15:37 Scheherazade
 
article conveniently left out details.

They met on sugardaddyme.com, where she was registered as 18.

And the sex is optional, not quid pro quo.

-scheherazade
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Morning Tech Bits
4. Re: Morning Tech Bits Sep 14, 2018, 02:43 Scheherazade
 
Creston wrote on Sep 13, 2018, 15:20:
Isn't anarchist organizer a contradictio in terminis?

Anarchy means 'no rule/government'. i.e. All persons/organizations/institutions are of absolutely equal authority. It can be viewed as a case of 'applied voluntaryism'. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntaryism

Anarchy does not mean chaos or disorder (The term makes no statement regarding those things. Historical cases of anarchic systems [eg. interwar period Barcelona https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Revolution_of_1936 ] were as organized as any other society).

Anarchy does not preclude any manner of voluntary organization, collaboration, coordination, etc.

-scheherazade

This comment was edited on Sep 14, 2018, 02:57.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Morning Metaverse
28. Re: Morning Metaverse Sep 4, 2018, 02:55 Scheherazade
 
Beamer wrote on Aug 29, 2018, 10:05:
Dude, everything you just posted is alt-right. It's literal alt-right bedrock. It's in the alt-right Bible.

You're alt-right. Next, you'll be complaining about antifa. You're defending Sargon and Peterson - that's de facto alt-right.


Yet Trumpers at work call me left wing.

: :-shrug-: :

-scheherazade

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Morning Metaverse
26. Re: Morning Metaverse Aug 29, 2018, 00:28 Scheherazade
 
Beamer wrote on Aug 28, 2018, 22:01:
If you're interested in Sargon, who has definitely harassed people, to the point that even Joe Rogan called him out on it, and Jordan Peterson, who isn't using science but hiding racism behind pseudo-science, sorry, you're not liberal. You're being indoctrinated into the alt right. This is how it starts. Those idiots sound reasonable via video, but if you stop and think you realize they're lunatics. They're race baiting and hiding white nationalism and dated heteronormatism behind flawed science.

It's no coincidence they're poster speakers for the alt right and incels. That their audience is almost entirely undersexed, undereducated, underemployed white males. They're gateway alt right. They say the same as the rest, but try to tone down their rhetoric. The media didn't just decide these guys have a rotten message - their message is rotten. I just don't get how someone can say "I'm a liberal, but that Jordan Peterson guy is a-ok. Life really was better with women barefoot in the kitchen! "

Sargon is ideologically post racial. He promotes race agnostic public policy.
He's against affirmative action, because it's racist. That's technically accurate.
He's against relaxed law enforcement in ethnic communities, because it's racism by low expectations, and people should be equal under the law. (A real issue in England and Sweden, where the governments are afraid of stirring ethnic tensions)
Yeah, he got panned as a racist for reporting on : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotherham_child_sexual_exploitation_scandal or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rochdale_child_sex_abuse_ring (don't remember which one, there have been a few) , but since it's true it isn't a fair characterization. (The scandal sounds like shit that racists would make up, so I get how he made his impression)
He's pro borders, because he thinks the government should give its own citizens priority opportunity. Well, why shouldn't it? Isn't that the government's role? I'm personally for open borders everywhere and universal right to work, with unrestricted travel world wide. I think governments would be much less able to abuse power if their citizens could just leave if they don't like things. But I would not force open borders onto anyone, particularly onto a country that is not "mine" (it isn't my business). Yes it would result in an initial massive fall in quality of life in wealthy areas, but in the long run it would be best planet-wide after economies readjust.

Peterson is anti-identitarian and anti-racial-determinism, which I agree with. I am not the same as every other person of my race, nor am I liable for the actions of other people sharing my race, nor am I fated to live the same life as everyone of my race. He doesn't even say anything that isn't obvious to any person who takes a moment to think.
I will say that his conflation of 'socialism as historically practiced' with 'socialism as a concept', is disingenuous. Russia never claimed to have a communist system. They claimed to be 'striving to achieve communism and were in a transformational state'. Likewise conflating 'the deaths resulting from the Russian people overthrowing the monarchy in a revolution' with 'deaths caused by socialism' is disingenuous.
I don't know where you got the 'woman in the kitchen' thing.

Incel was coined in the female community first, as an auto description by single ugly whales. It's by no means male dominated, even though recent pop culture gives the male element all the attention after the Toronto van attack.
And if we're gonna be honest, the only thing more pathetic than sad lonely people, is people who inflate their sense of self worth by making fun of sad lonely people.

What is a liberal if not a person who believes in individual liberty. Self determinism is a cornerstone of liberality, and it's something that the political left has forgotten about.

-scheherazade

This comment was edited on Aug 29, 2018, 01:28.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Morning Metaverse
22. Re: Morning Metaverse Aug 28, 2018, 20:40 Scheherazade
 
NKD wrote on Aug 28, 2018, 20:26:
Scheherazade wrote on Aug 28, 2018, 19:24:

I'm not saying their channels are off line right now. Simply that they've been hit with strikes for hate speech multiple times in the past for multiple videos that patently had no hate speech.

-scheherazade

Sam Harris reader/listener here. I'm fairly certain that he's never received a strike on YouTube, and his podcast is supported by listener donations, not ads.

I remember him mentioning it.

I googled but all I can find is this : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJ-Thavg1sY
( Where a guy got a youtube community guideline strike just for putting a Harris video in his playlist. Then Rogan talks about how his podcast gets flagged whenever Harris [edit, misspoke : Jordan not Harris] is a guest. )

-scheherazade

This comment was edited on Aug 29, 2018, 01:28.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Morning Metaverse
20. Re: Morning Metaverse Aug 28, 2018, 19:52 Scheherazade
 
Sepharo wrote on Aug 28, 2018, 19:49:
I'm not confusing anything, you said something that wasn't true.

Sorry, I will correct the statement to be clearer, that sometimes its demonetizations, sometimes its videos, sometimes its channels, depending on which person in question.

-scheherazade
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Morning Metaverse
18. Re: Morning Metaverse Aug 28, 2018, 19:44 Scheherazade
 
Sepharo wrote on Aug 28, 2018, 19:37:
Scheherazade wrote on Aug 28, 2018, 19:24:
Sepharo wrote on Aug 28, 2018, 18:46:
Scheherazade wrote on Aug 28, 2018, 18:41:
Sepharo wrote on Aug 28, 2018, 16:37:
To me, it just sounds like you're getting deeper into that kind of material.
If you spend a lot of time listening to people decrying "the left" and its "war on free speech" and "transitioning 6 year olds" and all that shit... It's not the world I live in. You're listening to one extreme describe another extreme and assuming they're both bigger than they are. They also provide a warped one sided narrative, like this for instance... "Youtube channels for people like Jordan Peterson, Sam Harris, Dave Rubin, etc, get regularly taken down for "hate speech" without actually having any hate speech." None of those three have had their youtube channels "taken down" at all let alone for hate speech. They had individual videos demonetized for controversial content... YouTube's advertisers don't want their ads appearing on "controversial" content. The same thing happens to left leaning channels and their controversial videos (something Rubin has acknowledged in his videos).

Oh, I don't think regular people are like this.

Popular media, however, is.

I've only met a couple "TV democrats" IRL (at one particular function), and never once met a "TV republican" IRL.

The ratio of demonetization and takedowns is far skewed, with the right taking a toweling this last year.

Actually, only recently after the Alex Jones take down did social media try to put in more balance to counter criticism, and we saw the first wave of more-widespread-than-typical lefty channel demonetization/takedown.

-scheherazade

Why did you say that Peterson, Harris, and Rubin had their channels "regularly taken down for hate speech" ?

Commonly demonetizations, less frequently videos, with the odd channel. If you track them for years, you would be aware of whenever it happens. ~Each time reverted under appeal.

-scheherazade

Your point was specifically about relatively civil intelligent content producers having their "channels taken down" which hasn't happened to those three at all. Which is a great example of what I mean when I say you're consuming a warped narrative, to the point that you're making things up to be more dramatic than they are.

You're confusing the current state, with past states.

They have had demonetizations, videos taken down, and some persons had their channels taken down.

Eg. Sargon has his channel down for hate speech, even though the hate speech videos had no such speech, and the channel was reinstated on appeal.

I don't mean to imply that my list was exhaustive, or that everyone on the list had the exact same actions taken against them. Merely that it's a list of people who have had content censured under false pretenses.

If you listen to their programs, across time, you will run into mentions of strikes, takedowns, etc, that were all reverted on appeal. This isn't something that just recently happened.

-scheherazade
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Morning Metaverse
15. Re: Morning Metaverse Aug 28, 2018, 19:24 Scheherazade
 
Sepharo wrote on Aug 28, 2018, 18:46:
Scheherazade wrote on Aug 28, 2018, 18:41:
Sepharo wrote on Aug 28, 2018, 16:37:
To me, it just sounds like you're getting deeper into that kind of material.
If you spend a lot of time listening to people decrying "the left" and its "war on free speech" and "transitioning 6 year olds" and all that shit... It's not the world I live in. You're listening to one extreme describe another extreme and assuming they're both bigger than they are. They also provide a warped one sided narrative, like this for instance... "Youtube channels for people like Jordan Peterson, Sam Harris, Dave Rubin, etc, get regularly taken down for "hate speech" without actually having any hate speech." None of those three have had their youtube channels "taken down" at all let alone for hate speech. They had individual videos demonetized for controversial content... YouTube's advertisers don't want their ads appearing on "controversial" content. The same thing happens to left leaning channels and their controversial videos (something Rubin has acknowledged in his videos).

Oh, I don't think regular people are like this.

Popular media, however, is.

I've only met a couple "TV democrats" IRL (at one particular function), and never once met a "TV republican" IRL.

The ratio of demonetization and takedowns is far skewed, with the right taking a toweling this last year.

Actually, only recently after the Alex Jones take down did social media try to put in more balance to counter criticism, and we saw the first wave of more-widespread-than-typical lefty channel demonetization/takedown.

-scheherazade

Why did you say that Peterson, Harris, and Rubin had their channels "regularly taken down for hate speech" ?

Commonly demonetizations, less frequently videos, with the odd channel. If you track them across years, you would be aware of whenever it happens. ~Each time reverted under appeal.

I'm not saying their channels are off line right now. Simply that they've been hit with strikes for hate speech multiple times in the past for multiple videos that patently had no hate speech.

-scheherazade

This comment was edited on Aug 28, 2018, 19:41.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
371 Comments. 19 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 ] Older >


footer

Blue's News logo