Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Slashdot Deals: Prep for the CompTIA A+ certification exam. Save 95% on the CompTIA IT Certification Bundle ×

Comment Re:All bullshit (Score 2) 262

And so long as you're citing medical reviews, please look up some of the work in the last decade or so on development of the frontal lobes and the established physical fact that teens (and in fact up to the late 20s) do not have the capability to make judgements about engaging in behavior which is both pleasurable and risky.

I read those studies. So does that mean people shouldn't have sex until their late 20s, because they can better make risky decisions then?

Teenagers routinely make equally risky decisions, such as following a religion, taking out college loans, joining the military, driving, swimming and playing football. Do you think they should be prohibited from doing all those things until their 20s?

According to Rind, teenage sex is no more harmful than any other activities of daily life. Every situation is different, so the person who is best able to make that decision is the person involved, the teenager. Your sweeping generalizations, like teenage girls have sex because of peer pressure, may not (and usually doesn't) apply to individual cases, so you don't have any right to tell all teenagers not to have sex, or that their consent doesn't matter, just because there is some girl, somewhere, who was harmed by having sex. It's their individual decision.

BTW, according to Rind, the small subset of teenagers harmed by sex generally come from families that follow sexually repressive religions. If you support laws that would prohibit children from being indoctrinated into religion, or entering buildings used for religion, until they reach their late 20s, I would be sympathetic to your argument.

Comment Re:All bullshit (Score 2) 262

The question is not about how many people have had sex by age 18 (or 16), but whether this is really consensual sex in the first place.

While I agree that jail time is almost certainly counterproductive, I completely disagree with the premise that early-age sex is either psychologically or physically healthy behavior. Further, it really is rare that young women are engaging in a fully consensual manner. They may "want" to have sex as a way of "proving maturity," or to be part of the cool crowd, but that's a poor definition of 'consensual.'

A certain overly randy POTUS fired a very well-spoken Surgeon General who had the nerve to suggest that teens would be far better off both physically and mentally if they engaged in autoeroticism. High time we accepted that position and did whatever we can to reduce the societal pressures to have early sex.

The question is not about how many people have had sex by age 18 (or 16), but whether this is really consensual sex in the first place.

While I agree that jail time is almost certainly counterproductive, I completely disagree with the premise that early-age sex is either psychologically or physically healthy behavior. Further, it really is rare that young women are engaging in a fully consensual manner. They may "want" to have sex as a way of "proving maturity," or to be part of the cool crowd, but that's a poor definition of 'consensual.'

Claiming that sex under the age of 17 or 16 is by definition "not consensual" is handing prosecutors a free pass to torment, harass, convict and jail half the teenage population at their total unaccountable discretion.

Sex, starting in the early teenage years, is a normal part of human development. Most of the research that claims that teenage sex is harmful is done by right-wing religious organizations like the Heritage Foundation, who have a long track record of being anti-science. This is global warming for sex.

You have unfortunately been taken in by the right-wing fantasies about the innocent flowers of childhood, the pathology of sex, their atavistic view of guilt, and their belief that they have the right to punish other people for their private life, again at their own total unaccountable discretion (which they don't apply to themselves, for example Josh Duggar or Bristol Palin).

Back in the 1950s, homosexuals were arrested for hanging out in gay bars, teenage girls were sent to reform school for having sex, and abortion was illegal so hospitals were filled with women dying of sepsis from illegal abortions. After the sexual revolution of the 1960s and 1970s, including Roe v. Wade (which ruled that the government had no right to intrude in the bedroom), I thought those days were over, but now it looks like a pendulum swing. In the 1990s the same people created the day care child sex abuse cases, and put bewildered people in jail for years (for what turned out to be fabricated charges). And the right wing is banning abortion again, state by state. It looks like you haven't learned the lessons of those days.

Unfortunately there is a lunatic fringe of the feminist movement of people like Andrea Dworkin, who was a lesbian and convinced a lot of people into believing that all heterosexual sex is rape and exploitation of women by men. They'd like to see the issue of teenage sex framed as boys raping and exploiting girls, even if the girls actively want to have sex. There's a whole anti-sex industry that has moved into this issue, with its own fake experts and think tanks like the Heritage Foundation.

I'll go to the scientific literature. Teenage sex is normal, it 's been going on since prehistory, and it doesn't do any more harm than any other normal activity (and a lot less harm than driving, swimming or football). Why is it your business to tell a teenage girl that she can't have sex even if she wants to, or that sex is somehow wrong?

http://psycnet.apa.org/journal...
http://digilib.bc.edu/reserves...
Bruce Rind, Philip Tromovitch, Robert Bauserman
A Meta-Analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples
Psychological Bulletin 1998. 124(1): 22–53. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.124.1.22. PMID 9670820.
Many lay persons and professionals believe that child sexual abuse (CSA) causes intense harm, regardless of gender, pervasively in the general population. The authors examined this belief by reviewing 59 studies based on college samples. Meta-analyses revealed that students with CSA were, on average, slightly less well adjusted than controls. However, this poorer adjustment could not be attributed to CSA because family environment (FE) was consistently confounded with CSA, FE explained considerably more adjustment variance than CSA, and CSA-adjustment relations generally became nonsignificant when studies controlled for FE. Self-reported reactions to and effects from CSA indicated that negative effects were neither pervasive nor typically intense, and that men reacted much less negatively than women. The college data were completely consistent with data from national samples. Basic beliefs about CSA in the general population were not supported.

http://www.slate.com/articles/...
The Mind-Booty Problem
Rethinking the age of sexual consent.
By William Saletan
Sept. 27, 2007, at 8:02 AM ET
This is the reality of sex with minors: The ages of the parties vary widely from case to case. For more than a century, states and countries have been raising and standardizing the legal age of consent. Horny teenagers are being thrown in with pedophiles. The point of this crackdown was to lock up perverts and protect incompetent minors. But the rationales and the numbers don't match up. The age of majority and the age of competence are coming apart. The age of competence is fracturing, and the age of female puberty is declining. It's time to abandon the myth of the "age of consent" and lower the threshold for legal sex.
The original age of consent, codified in English common law and later adopted by the American colonies, ranged from 10 to 12.

Comment Re:Bogus Nonsense (Score 1) 262

Given that the guy committed statutory rape, yeah, this was good. By the way, the meaning of being below the age of consent is that the girl in question COULD NOT CONSENT.

You are denouncing normal human sexuality. Prosecutors are putting boys in jail for exercising normal human adolescent sexual activity.

26% of females have intercourse by age 15.

http://www.kinseyinstitute.org...

What are you going to do? Put half the teenage boys in jail?

You really ought to think through your COULD NOT CONSENT. It makes no sense.

Comment Re:Anyone else hate the misuse of entitlement? (Score 1) 262

If I want to have sex with a woman, it's not because I feel entitled to her body, it's because I want to have sex with her. There's no conscious "engage the patriarchy" moment, it's a purely instinctual thing.

Oh, come on. Don't you want to suppress women? That way we can hire them for less money and they won't complain about cleaning up the bathroom.

Comment Re:All bullshit (Score 4, Informative) 262

He was 17, she was 15 when the sex occurred. He didn't rape her. She regretted it afterwards, and either cried rape or was forced to cry rape by her parents.

If all the upperclassmen that had sex with underclassmen at my former high school were jailed, probably a third of the school would be behind bars. This is fucking ridiculous.

The facts support you on this.

Half the population had sex by age 17. Are we going to put half the population in jail for having sex with the other half?

http://www.kinseyinstitute.org...
Percent of population having had first intercourse, by age
Males Females
25% by age 15 26% by age 15
37% by age 16 40% by age 16
46% by age 17 49% by age 17
62% by age 18 70% by age 18
69% by age 19 77% by age 19
85% by age 20-21 81% by age 20-21
89% by age 22-24 92% by age 22-24

Comment Re:Oh dear (Score 1) 587

I hope they don't have any cell phones in their house.
I hope they don't use a microwave.
I hope they don't live near any cell towers.
I hope they don't live near any TV or radio transmitters

What would be funny is if they had turned off WiFi in his classes and not told them, and they continued to complain.

There was an article several years ago in the IEEE Spectrum when the health hazards of EMFs were first getting to be an issue.

They reviewed studies where people actually went around to normal homes and measured the radiation.

They found that the highest levels of EMF were in food blenders and electric razors. Much higher than the power lines in the backyards.

It's true that food blenders and electric razors are only used for short periods of time, but the best evidence for the biological effects (effects, not harm) of EMF on cells was also found when they were exposed for a short period of time.

At that time I went to a talk by Louis Slesin, publisher of Microwave News, who was promoting this idea of the harmful effects of EMF. I asked him what he thought of the IEEE Spectrum review article.

He said, "I don't want to talk about it." He kept refusing after I pressed him on it. He wouldn't tell me why he didn't want to talk about it either.

Comment Re:commentsubjectsaredumb (Score 1) 587

Show me where a licensed professional made a "EMHS syndrome" diagnosis.

From TFA:

The physician who diagnosed G, Dr. Jeanne Hubbuch, said in a letter to the school last year that EHS was the only possibility that explains the symptoms.

Q: Tell me, Dr. Hubbuch, how do you know it couldn't be aliens sending space rays?

Comment Re:A country sized face palm event. (Score 1) 755

What if you take everything way from a wealthy person and a few years later they are wealthy again? Do you take it all away again and keep taking it away until they learn their lesson?

Yeah. Like the chickens. You keep taking away their eggs, so they lay more.

They keep taking it all away from us. Why shouldn't we take it all away from them?

We don't have to take everything away from them. We could leave them with enough for a couple of vacation homes, an Italian sports car, a mistress or two, and a yacht if it's not too extravagant. Anything less than that would be a hardship.

But the rest of it should go to repay society back for the benefits they got from society.

Comment Re:4/5 in favor (Score 2) 755

It works in Scandinavian countries.

It also works in Germany. The German unemployment system gives Germans the same income from being unemployed as they would if they were employed. Some of the Germans use their unemployment time as a vacation. Others use it to go to school or get more training in their jobs. A welder would learn advanced welding techniques.

If it doesn't work in the US, it's because we're not doing it right.

Comment Re:Communism doesn't work (Score 1) 755

I read Milton Friedman's books. I read his Playboy interview that he liked so much. I read his op-eds in the Wall Street Journal. I also read Henry Ford's books on the assembly line and the whole Ford system.

Friedman's free market works very well in certain circumstances. It was pretty good for organizing automobile factories during the 1930s, and up to about the 1970s. (Of course, the Soviets did a good job of manufacturing tanks during WWII with central command.)

I once studied the electrical power generating and distribution industry (particularly the nuclear power industry). There were private companies and government-run companies. I asked people in the industry to name the best-run companies. If Friedman were right, the private companies would be efficient and the government companies would be inefficient. But that's not what the people in the industry told me. Some of the best companies were private companies, like Commonwealth Edison, and some were government-run, like the Tennessee Valley Authority.

The Internet was created by the government. Gordon Crovitz, the Wall Street Journal editorial writer, proved that. He wrote an editorial in the WSJ about how the Internet was really created by private entrepreneurs. All the people whose books and contributions he cited wrote to the WSJ and said that he got their books and their experience all wrong. They started out working on government grants, and the government supported the Internet at every step.

Friedman had beautiful theories. Unfortunately, like Aristotle, he never looked at what was happening in the real world to see if his theories were confirmed. They weren't. Sometimes the free market works better, sometimes the government works better.

Comment Re:4/5 in favor (Score 3, Interesting) 755

Only about %0.1 percent of the population cares about inheritance tax

You made that number up, right? You don't have a source for it, right? That's what conservatives always do.

Do YOU care about inheritance tax? WHY? FREE MONEY COMING SOON???

I care about the inheritance tax, just like Bernie Sanders does, because without it, the top 0.1% own as much as the bottom 90% combined. http://www.theguardian.com/bus...

I wouldn't care if the rich simply used their money to buy yachts, diamonds and cars, and fly around the world vacationing in their mansions and at five-star hotels, eating at five-star restaurants. I don't care about their enjoying luxury (even though Adam Smith thought that it was wasteful and the rich should be taxed more).

I care about the rich because they're using their money to buy influence (that is, bribe politicians), and run the country.

It's not enough for them to be rich. They have to create a fantasy in which they got rich because they were hard-working and deserved it (even though most of them inherited their money), and the poor are poor because they're lazy and don't deserve it. They have to destroy it for the rest of us. They maliciously enjoy making the rest of us suffer.

I think we have to take away the money from the rich to disarm them, because they're dangerous to the world. It's like taking nuclear weapons away from Iran.

Comment Re:A country sized face palm event. (Score 4, Insightful) 755

Here is a crazy idea if you don't work, you don't eat.

Yeah, that's what Lenin said. "Those who do not work, do not eat."

I personally see nothing wrong with letting people suffer as a form of motivation.

I see nothing wrong with making you suffer as a form of motivation.

I think we should take away the assets of the wealthy, in order to give them a motivation to work. If we just let people sit on a multi-million dollar investment portfolio, they won't have any motivation to work.

If the rich are so smart, when we take their money away, they'll just earn some more.

It's like a chicken. When you take away her eggs, she'll lay some more.

Comment Re:Communism doesn't work (Score 1) 755

We tried this in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe and ended up with 10 year waiting lists for cars.

How's that free market working out in the Soviet Union? Yeah, it's an imperfect free market. But that's what free markets look like.

Just don't be surprised when no one serves you latte and breakfast on the way to work. After all why should someone wake up at 4:30 am and bust their butts when they could be still be being paid sleeping in and watching TV for the rest of the day

I wouldn't wake up at 4:30am and bust my butt to serve you latte and breakfast. But I would wake up at 4:30am and go to work at a medical clinic, to help people who are suffering. I'd work in a laboratory.

There are lots of doctors who come from very wealthy families, and don't have to work, but graduated medical school and work in medicine anyway. There was a doctor at Memorial Sloan-Kettering who donated his salary to the hospital, and worked free.

The economists are wrong. People aren't motivated by money. They're motivated more by personal satisfaction. Our instinct is to serve the needs of the community. Humans wouldn't have survived 100,000 years otherwise.

It is impossible to travel faster than light, and certainly not desirable, as one's hat keeps blowing off. -- Woody Allen

Working...