Most of the viewers are not smart, let alone geniuses either.
The show isn't trying to portray smart people, it's trying to portray dumb people's idea of what smart people are probably like..
Same could be said for Big Bang Theory. Look at how popular that is.
I really wish the British would learn the differences between a pedophile, child pornographer and child molester already. And that being a pedophile is not a crime.
Another Yank without a clue. "Child molesting" is rape, and is a crime. Possession or creation of "child pornography" (i.e. portrayals of child rape) is a less serious crime, but quite rightly still a crime.
Simply being a paedophile and not acting on it is no more illegal than being a Holocaust denier or goat-fucker.
I love insane people they make me laugh. However, they are a danger to themselves and others so I generally avoid them. Being a pedophile IS a crime. By definition: http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/...
pedophile pedfl/ noun noun: paedophile; plural noun: paedophiles; noun: pedophile; plural noun: pedophiles a person who is sexually attracted to children.
Is that British enough for you? How ever here is something you don't grasp. It is virtually impossibly for people afflicted with this mental disorder ( http://focus.psychiatryonline.... ) to NOT molest children. Either they rape them or they force them to engage in sexual acts with each other, or they trade in the movies and photographs of others who have done so. For example Steven Collins has admitted to being a pedophile because he exposed himself to a child. Sadly, the statute of limitations for his child molestation crime as ran out in NY state, he cannot be charged. Nevertheless, he acts on his impulses. Oh and being a Holocaust denier or goat-fucker are also illegal. The second is bestiality, the first is a crime is Germany and Israel. It is the only that isnt a crime here because it falls under free speech and has nothing to do with sex. So to be succinct: Pedophile = child molester. Child molester = Child pornographer, They are the three sides to the same evil triangle.
Mysidia seems to be thinking along the lines of supreme court decisions regarding obscenity. Obscenity is difficult to define and the definition depends on intent - naked pics intended to get the viewer horny vs naked pics in a medical textbook intended to educate. Maroney's lawyers had them removed from a site called porn.com. Porn.com is aptly named - it's a porn site. Naked pictures of an attractive young woman on porn.com are probably there to be used as porn. It's porn.com, after all.
When children are involved, you don't need definitions that are quite as nuanced because you don't have quite the same first amendment issues. There's nto really any valid reason to film kids doing anything sexual, so the law can be more clear-cut. Here's a sample definition from one state:
Sec. 43.25. SEXUAL PERFORMANCE BY A CHILD. (a) In this section: (1) "Sexual performance" means any performance or part thereof that includes sexual conduct by a child younger than 18 years of age. (2) "Sexual conduct" means sexual contact, actual or simulated sexual intercourse, deviate sexual intercourse, sexual bestiality, masturbation, sado-masochistic abuse, or lewd exhibition of the genitals, the anus, or any portion of the female breast below the top of the areola. (3) "Performance" means any play, motion picture, photograph, dance, or other visual representation that can be exhibited before an audience of one or more persons.
This is what the law needs to look like:
Sec. 43.25. SEXUAL PERFORMANCE BY A CHILD. (a) In this section:
(1) "Sexual performance" means any performance or part thereof that includes sexual conduct by a child.
(2) "Child" means any boy or girl who is prepubescent. Also specifically any male or female under the chronological age of 13 if they have begun to develop secondary sexual characteristics, otherwise known medically as puberty.
(2) "Sexual conduct" means actual or simulated penetration of vagina, mouth or anus, sexual engagement with animals, masturbation, sado-masochistic abuse, or lewd exhibition of the penis either erect or flaccid, the anus, or female breast in conjunction with anus or vagina. Hands in genital area is also considered lewd.
(3) "Performance" means any play, motion picture, digital or analog photograph, dance, or other visual representation that can be exhibited before an audience of one or more persons. Animation that involves 3d avatars that look like cartoons do qualify as well.
This should solve that problem. It tightens the law to be functional again and removes that nasty Child pron anime that seems to float around. Also we get an actual definition of a child. (and I killed off a loophole for those might develop early) We can create a jailbait law with it. Which leads to an interesting discussion. Should that be illegal? (Don't assume I think it shouldn't.)
A vital detail that those outside the city (and many within it) don't know - and of course won't get from the inflammatory OMG! NANNY STATE! headline/summary - is that the City of Seattle doesn't have a local landfill. Hasn't for many years; there's no nearby space. Instead, all garbage is loaded onto train cars - hundreds of them a day - and sent by rail to a landfill in rural Oregon, about 250 miles away. That was the cheapest alternative for the city, even though it involves paying twice (once to transport it, and again to the landfill operator). But it's still expensive. Given that it's in the best interest of the City _and_ its ratepayers to reduce the amount of landfillable waste (aka number of train cars) in favor of more economic alternatives; specifically, recycling and composting, both of which are able to be handled within a few dozen miles of the city, at much lower cost than the landfill trains. The alternative is to have even more and longer trains and higher rates for garbage for everyone. Kind of the opposite of a nanny state; this is pure and simple economics. If the spectre of a few $1 fines for the few residents who can't be bothered to separate their greasy pizza boxes into another bin makes everyone's garbage rates lower, then I'm all for it.
Thats BS. Seattle has no landfill because it doesn't want one. Not because there is no space. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seattle_City_Light
http://faculty.georgetown.edu/...
http://www.economist.com/node/...
(from 2007)
http://seattletimes.com/.../20...
(2012)
http://your.kingcounty.gov/sol...
OP is referencing this: http://www.seattle.gov/finance...
That's the problem: wastefull goverment mismanagement when they could make a deal with those nearby.
Actually, as soon as the garbage men show up, it's the governemnt's trash. I don't see why they shouldn't be free to do whatever they want with their property.
If it's the government's trash, why are they threatening ME with a fine if THEIR trash has too much food waste in it?
Nobody is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to segreagate your waste according to the government's specifications. You're always free to load your garbage in your car, find a privately run landfill who will accept it as-is, and bring it there.
Oh but they are. What do you think that fine, no matter how small it is, is for? Its to force you to segreagate your waste according to the government's specifications because most don't have the time to drive to the 920-acre Cedar Hills Regional Landfill, located in Maple Valley, about 20 miles southeast of Seattle.
Or the Roosevelt landfill, above the Columbia River Gorge.
Or the Rabanco landfill in Klickitat County.
Not a good explanation at all, just a clumsy attempt to justify poor writing.
When the vast majority of the population talks of 'wasting food' they mean one thing - allowing otherwise edible material to become inedible. What happens AFTER it becomes inedible does not matter in the slightest. It does not matter if you put the stuff into the trash or compost, as far as being FOOD it has been wasted.
A headline of 'Seattle Passes Law to Encourage Recycling Organic Material' would actually convey what happened. You may or may not agree with such a law, but at least you know what it is.
A headline of 'Seattle Passes Law to Keep Residents From Wasting Food' tells you NOTHING about what they actually did. Are they going to restrict how many groceries a family can buy? Are they going to check your refrigerator to make sure you don't let leftovers go bad? Are they going to fine you for discard any food? The only reason to write such a stupid headline is as flamebait.
No, A better headline would be: Seattle Passes Law to Force Recycling Organic Material' You don't encourage people with a fine. A fine is a punishment for failing to do what is told. Seattle wants people to recycle so they can make compost. My question is why?
Please people, before you mod damn_registrars up, take a look at his comments. He's just harassing samzenpus.
This article certainly is about wasting food.
Landfill - a place to dispose of refuse and other waste material by burying it and covering it over with soil, especially as a method of filling in or extending usable land.
If you put extra food in a landfill it becomes waste. If you put extra food into a compost bin, it becomes fertilizer. If you are putting extra food into the landfill you get a ticket. Therefor you are getting ticketed for "Wasting" food. It's not hard.
You ignored one problem. A landfill is a hole in the GROUND
Food going there still becomes compost. Its just not accessible to the city. The city wants the compost for something and is willing to fine citizens for it. For what is a valid question. The post is still poorly crafted.
"It's the best thing since professional golfers on 'ludes." -- Rick Obidiah