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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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).

Creston wrote on Sep 13, 2018, 15:20:
Isn't anarchist organizer a contradictio in terminis?

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.

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! "

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.

Sepharo wrote on Aug 28, 2018, 19:49:
I'm not confusing anything, you said something that wasn't true.

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.

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" ?