Forgot your password?

typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Simple: compromise (Score 1) 409

by celle (#39035621) Attached to: Europe's 'Right To Be Forgotten' Threatens Online Free Speech

"The guideline that has been around since before language was invented is "if you do something stupid then you live with the consequences"."

    I guess no one has read "The Scarlet Letter" then. Since information on the net is forever and accessible by anyone that story is more true than ever.

Comment: Re:Actual Reality check (Score 1) 721

by celle (#39026261) Attached to: Reddit: No More Suggestive Content Featuring Minors

"but they most certainly do not have the experience to make informed decisions or a real grasp of the concept of consequence"

    Neither do college kids, hazing and drunken stupidity come to mind, but their still adults under the law. They are still learning and it doesn't stop ever so you're definition is incorrect.

Comment: Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography (Score 1) 721

by celle (#39026025) Attached to: Reddit: No More Suggestive Content Featuring Minors

"We're a better society for making sure that DOESN'T happen,"

    Are we, just ask that guy who's on a sex-crime list for just having consentual sex with a girl of 16 when he was 18. Is his life better? And what about the others affected by this artificial legal stupidity. The more affected, the more society is affected.

"what's a disorder is a willingness to act on these impulses."

      Just because you disagree doesn't make it a disorder. Maybe the law or your views are the disorder. "When in Rome, do as the Romans do" isn't always right, hence "If someone jumps off a bridge, should you?"
Life is action, everything else is talking out your ass. Law is often wrong, the reason we have court battles.

Comment: Re:Some Context from a Redditor (Score 1) 721

by celle (#39025349) Attached to: Reddit: No More Suggestive Content Featuring Minors

"giving advice on intoxicating, seducing, and fucking people is wrong."

    I'm surprised the guy had to ask as this scenario has been used in various media for decades. The young girl isn't even new as I remember references to similar situations in the 70's in movies, and books. Speaking of books, lets not leave out the bible and several historical references.
      Thing is I think people just don't care anymore. They definitely don't remember much or learn from history. But others don't learn either that just because it was wrong then doesn't mean it is now. The deafness goes both ways. The worst part is all this whining about something that's been going on for millenia and it's not going away soon regardless of whatever purge is currently going on. Kind of like the oldest profession, just from the arrest reports it's doing quite well even with the legal justification no longer relevant.

Comment: Re:Some Context from a Redditor (Score 1) 721

by celle (#39024791) Attached to: Reddit: No More Suggestive Content Featuring Minors

"He received advice about how to get her drunk, how to gradually introduce her to some physical intimacy via backrubs and neck massage, and gradually escalate to fully sexual encounters."

You've described one of the basic predatory behaviors of every male on the planet when going after females.

    Funny, don't buddies give the same/similar advice, when you haven't figured it out yourself, to each other from early teen years to late twenties when chasing women in the Y/clubs/bars/etc. Well, except in bars women often get themselves wasted. Not everyone looks like Brad Pitt, every little trick helps in a game of traps and one-sided rules.

Fact is evolution is slow, social arrogance is fast.

Comment: Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography (Score 1) 721

by celle (#39024207) Attached to: Reddit: No More Suggestive Content Featuring Minors

"The essential problem with pedophilia is that children can't consent in an informed fashion."

    How do you know children can't consent in an informed fashion? If they are educated first isn't that informed consent? Even uneducated and just by instinct they understand better than distracted teens and twentysomethings. Your statement assumes the children haven't already learned/experienced on their own exploration from/with their friends/media/enemies etc.

    How can you give informed consent when you don't know about it yet? Even adults can't give informed consent if they haven't learned or experienced the subject yet.

Comment: Re:Lax attitudes toward child pornography (Score 1) 721

by celle (#39023745) Attached to: Reddit: No More Suggestive Content Featuring Minors

"Police go after people possessing part of a dead plant to combat the production of said plant. Police go after possession of child pornography to combat the production of child pornography. "

    Except it doesn't stop production of said plant or porn. Police are just harassing the consumers. If you want to stop production get it at the source, otherwise it's just a power game. The fact is it's just a way to single out and control a group of people you can't directly stop(unless you want a general uprising to happen). Just take a group of people and target them with labels that they are porn users or druggies and the public ignores them and the police can harass them any way they want. Divide and conquer. Keep adding people to the list and asking for more money and before long everyone is divided and controlled. A slippery slope it is and an open door for the corrupt.
    Remember just because you don't like it, whether you understand it or not, doesn't mean it's wrong. We all have our own views on how life should be lived. It's not your right to trample on some else's life if it's not harming you. That freedom of speech/religion/privacy/gun thing. Even government is limited, limits they are trying and succeeding to roll back everyday, and if what is being done by individuals is not hurting anyone else than so be it.

Let he who has the perfect existence cast the first stone. (none of us do have a perfect existence)

"Theoretically, by making the possession of child pornography more dangerous, they are reducing the value of it. Which in turn reduces the demand for production and thus the value inherent in producing it."

    Theoretically, but in reality making child porn illegal does just what it did for drugs. It increases the value via scarcity and damages society by increased abuse of the public by power hungry people using/abusing often outdated or overreaching laws. Thereby criminalizing a good sized chunk of the public doing something that is non-violent, fun, and often harmless except to those with agendas. Demand never went down and actually has gone up as it's now forbidden fruit. The laws only drove the real child porn production underground, just like drugs. Child porn has only been illegal since 1976 and those laws were passed to prevent excessive child neglect via business profiteering due to the cost of creation not to go after individuals who view it/use it. When kids can create their porn and send it to their friends for nothing the law has been made completely irrelevant. And children do have rights of choice even if as adults we don't like to admit it. I haven't been seeing anything in the news in awhile about prosecutors going after kids, guess they realized pissing off their voter parents by severely abusing measures wasn't such a good idea. Never mind what those kids learned and with how they'll think and act when they grow up. I won't even comment on prosecutions of 18 year old boys/men screwing their 16 year old girlfriends.
    Talk to your parents, the USA was doing just fine before these idiotic laws were passed. Besides we're all child molesters when were young. What do you think all that sexual shit we go through as children, teenagers, and twenty-somethings is about. Somehow I don't think decade old laws and hundred year old cultural views will ever override million year old hormonal and sexual drives.
    Speaking of drugs I see cigarettes and alcohol is still legal given the expense of production as much of it's subsidized, and the huge body of evidence of addiction and abuse by producers and users. While a useful, free growing weed, marijuana(hemp) that is cheap to produce, available everywhere, and is not addictive, is illegal.
    Somehow forbidding a private citizen from possessing anything, that's not actively hurting someone else, in a supposedly free country seems kind of wrong.
    Since we're going after everyone else. Why are those private fusion/chemical/biological researchers still on the loose? Never mind these individuals experimenting with little containment if something goes wrong. Just considering if they screw up it probably won't be little(especially biological). Monsanto should be butchered just on the biological(seed lines limits/cross contamination of independents)/legal(harassing independent growers and supporters)/financial(driving up grain prices) problems they've caused. (Just pointing out legal stupidity in action)

The USA, land of the hypocrites.

"Notice when we don't like anything we declare war on it. It's our only method of discourse is to declare war. We don't do anything about it. The war on drugs. The war on poverty..." -- pseudo Carlin -- He has other more on topic but this is the one that came to mind at the moment.
     

Noise proves nothing. Often a hen who has merely laid an egg cackles as if she laid an asteroid. -- Mark Twain

Working...