Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:How? (Score 1) 336 336

What if there is no "relative power" involved? What if a man goes into a city park, walks up to a group of 10-year-olds and asks who wants to have sex with him? There is no power he has over them, they can leave or ignore him as they choose, or they can choose to go with him of their own volition.

Except for the fact that he's more intelligent than they are, vastly more experienced and knowledgable, much richer, and twice their size. Except those things, he doesn't have any power over them.

Except for the fact those qualities don't come into play in the scenario I described.

More intelligent - why does that matter for having sex? Dumb people aren't allowed?
More experienced - in having sex, or in life in general? Moot point anyway.
More knowledgeable - again, about sex or life in general? Another moot point.
Richer - A) not necessarily, B) that doesn't matter among adults' rights to have sex, why would it here?
Bigger - Did I say he grabbed the kids and dragged them off to the bushes?

Sorry, you post doesn't explain at all why it makes sense to distinguish between adults and children concerning sex, which was the point my first post was responding to. Nothing in your arguments establishes any real power over children other than brute force. If the sex doesn't involve brute force, the claims of the adult being smarter or richer don't seem to be a valid reason to prevent it.

As a final point, what if the adult was a 120-pound woman in her 30s, and she approached a group of athletic teenage boys (who are still below age of consent in their state) who are from rich and influential families? Your arguments don't hold up at all.

Comment Re:How? (Score 1) 336 336

What if there is no "relative power" involved? What if a man goes into a city park, walks up to a group of 10-year-olds and asks who wants to have sex with him? There is no power he has over them, they can leave or ignore him as they choose, or they can choose to go with him of their own volition.

While I do agree that our society puts too much force on the taboo of nudity, I think the ones who fight against it face the risk of simply giving free license to every pervert to do whatever they want, including pedophilia and incest. How exactly do you draw that line, without someone feeling they are being discriminated against?

Comment Re: How? (Score 1) 336 336

No, I'm sure that person was completely sincere. I've seen it many times here on /. and other discussion sites. It usually is in the vein of "The common people are ignorant morons, so we must silence them and ignore them so that we (the intelligent benevolent overlords) can properly rule them without disruption."

The sad thing is that I've seen it from people on the far left, far right, and centrists of the political range. Seems like most groups want to silence their opposition.

Comment Re:Slashdot users are finally getting trim! (Score 1) 179 179

When I worked on a military base a while back, there was a young female in the group whose last name was Trim. I never made a comment on it until the last couple days I was going to be there, and only in response to her making a remark like "some guys snicker" when hearing her name. I told her it was one of the first thought in my mind months earlier, but couldn't say anything.

Could be worse though. In World War II, there was an Admiral Kuntz. He has a road and access gate named after him at Pearl Harbor. Imagine being his daughters.

Comment Re:Birds are not living dinosaurs, (Score 1) 47 47

Actually, the Wikipedia article I linked to explicitly says that my definition is what most people consider to be correct. It's only a new generation of 'dinosaur experts' that have decided they don't like that definition, and have came up with a new classification system. Now, only one particular group of ancient reptiles counts as dinosaurs, based solely on their hip joint, even though many of that group don't fit at all the classic view of dinosaurs.

As a point of fact, the term 'dinosaur' is itself mis-descriptive because neither part of the word is particularly accurate to the new classification. I guess the word should join phlogiston on the heap of discredited scientific lore.


Fine. I get it. New crops of scientists have different views from their predecessors. They look at things from a different angle, make different assumptions, and produce different classifications. Eventually new models are agreed on, even though those new models are also open to re-interpretation by the next wave of scientists. So, just as I'll wait for Pluto to again be called a planet in its own right, I'll wait for dinosaurs to include ancient reptiles that seem to fit the template better than the hummingbird does.

Comment Re:First, do no harm (Score 1) 265 265

I honestly do not know what your point here is.

Actually, Doctors can tell that bill to go fuck itself.

Actually, the governor just did that by vetoing it.

The state is not a medically-licensed entity. It has no right to practice medicine.

"The state" is the entity that does the licensing. It has the authority to determine what doctors can, can't, or must do in various situations. Usually, these rules are made with input from medical professionals, or written by the medical community itself, then passed into law through the state legislature, and signed by the governor.
In this case, this one rule change was stopped at that last point. Why you are attacking me for pointing that out is ... Actually, again, I don't know what that is, other than misguided.

Judges that make medical decisions are explicitly practicing medical fraud.

Not that that has been mentioned above, but I'm sure judges use their authority given to them by the same state that licenses medical professionals, when they make medical decisions.
You may not agree with them, but you can't prove your claim of "medical fraud".

And the medical doctors have every right to file suit and/or the medical association may levy fines, as it is firmly within their jurisprudence.

????? Again, no idea what your point is.

Please try again when you possess any form of medical licensing and have read the rights which are afforded to you when you obtain said licensing.

It doesn't take being a licensed medical professional (doctor, nurse, dentist, psychiatrist, etc.) to understand a law that applies to them. By the way, laws don't grant rights, whichever ones you may be claiming here. Laws may define or stipulate a certain authority, responsibility, or privilege, especially for groups that work within other rights observed by the system.
So get back to me when you actually understand the laws which you are trying to attack. So far you have just been tilting at windmills.

Comment Re:Feels weird agreeing with scientologists (Score 1) 265 265

It's up to 4 hours for a raving lunatic to "cool down".

The post I responded to specifically was about raving lunatics. Are you sure doctors can't already detain raving lunatics in the state this article is about?

The first response to that post denied that raving lunatics can be detained, and for proof it was stated that they can be detained. I pointed out the error of that post.

Now, you are just as blind in your reaction, making a statement you surely don't know the accuracy of, because of some personal bias that isn't my concern.

So, I will state again, for all you idiots out there: If a person is a raving lunatic,which implies being an immediate danger to themselves and others, the legal and medical systems already have laws/rules/procedures in place to handle the situation. Period. End of lecture.

Comment Re:First, do no harm (Score 1) 265 265

Apparently, since the governor vetoed the bill that would have allowed/required doctors to do so, it is not their fucking job to detain their patients in this way. Other states surely have different rules, but we are not talking about those states here.

It's funny you mention I learn the word jurisprudence, since it obviously is outside your ken.

"There is nothing new under the sun, but there are lots of old things we don't know yet." -Ambrose Bierce