This idea has promise. After all, keeping teens apart has long been used to stifle a more primal kind of information transfer. Indeed, hasn't some part of the human genome been patented yet? Why haven't the fundies tried to crack down on fornication using copyright law? A limited-license agreement could be written into marriage contracts.

A voluntary military has the same moral problem. If you pay people to fight wars, you're going to end up with poorer people dying in your wars.

No, but surely he is arguing that the good (reducing deaths resulting from a scarcity of organs) outweighs the bad (problems associated with an organ market).

He is making two different points, first that an organ market would be beneficial, and second, that it could become acceptable in the same way that paying an army has become acceptable, despite the fact that the latter presents a similar moral concern. One might disagree with these assertions, but they do not appear to be as incoherent as you imply.

then the texter escalated even further, into the spiritual realm

Great! Google hijacked so many boats the poor unemployed whales had to move to Hawaii. What's next, gentrification of the clouds?

Hopefully the researchers have purchased a sufficient quantity of GI Joe figurines and toy tanks to deal with the inevitable tiny Godzilla they will create.

They do. It's this funnel-shaped thing that idiots throw coins into for some reason.

You mean two entities like the obscure music collaborative of common insects to which you refer, and celebrated rock band the Beatles?

How can they possibly know this? You'd have to know precisely when each person in the sample was infected, so you could compare accident rates before and afterward. (Otherwise it might just be the case that cat owners tend to be accident prone.) You'd need to set up an experiment where you infected half the people with it and then employed them all as taxi drivers.

Thanks. It's refreshing to see someone accept such criticism gracefully.

It is purest sophistry to suggest that laws against theft exist to protect one against the consequences of his decision to put himself in a situation where theft from him would be possible. One might take every conceivable precaution against theft and still find himself a victim of theft. Even were everyone to be so prudent, laws against theft would still be necessary in order to dissuade potential thieves from deciding to take up the profession. Conversely, the revenge-porn law, insofar as it covers incidents in which the victim willingly took and sent the relevant pictures, protects people from their own choices, and is thus different in kind.

That one cannot conceive of a benefit for some kind of behavior is not grounds for making it illegal. Hence the argument that "no one needs an assault weapon" or "no one needs to buy liquor on Sunday" are in themselves insufficient to justify associated restrictions. Likewise, that one can conceive of benefits for a law is not grounds for enacting it. One must weigh as well the detriments, in this case the consequences of proclaiming women to be in need of protections generally reserved for those judged mentally incompetent.

If the law were to protect women from the posting of photos stolen from them, or taken without their consent, this would be another matter. As it stands, it should raise the hackles of feminists everywhere.

Self-righteous blustering on behalf of sexual freedom aside, there are arguments to be made firstly that a law criminalizing posting revenge porn is a paternalistic abomination, and secondly that the fact the law happens to benefit you personally is irrelevant to whether the law is justified.

The state does make laws that protect people from the consequences of their own actions. Thus we have laws against children buying alcohol and cigarettes, and we treat juvenile offenders differently from adults. We also have laws against taking advantage of the poor decision-making capabilities of the feeble-minded. It is another thing entirely to afford such protection to a group of people one would suppose to comprise rational adults. It is worth considering whether any benefits of the law are worth the cost of placing women as a whole (and these sites appear to focus near exclusively on pictures of women) amongst the rest of those we presume not to hold wholly responsible for their actions, especially given that women already have a difficult time getting taken seriously.

"Journals published by Elsevier, Wolters Kluwer, and Sage all accepted my bogus paper."

What are you talking about? A Russian demolished Apollo and we had to go there and get revenge.

I don't recommend this approach. That's what I did, and ultimately it divorced me and took half my stuff.

that's what I said, but they still kicked me out of my daughter's piano recital for wearing a gimp suit.