mick_towe

Barbarossa http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCDoNFQZqQpd6aL32Ua4JPTQ and The Thinking Ape (Stardusk) http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCo1qRcO1OehgkOD_fHsu_uQ

Ahhh. My apologies. It seems I am wasting my breath. Split on with yer bad self

I hear what you are saying, it is a technical critique, and it is not without merit. But for me the details are irrelevant. Mutilating babies = bad. Splitting hairs about whether female or male mutilation is worse is just an attempt to distract from the issue. If I am discussing this topic and someone happens to say "Well male circumcision is not quite the same as female circumcision ..." then I know I am talking to a person that would rather distract from the issue, than condemn a crime against babies. I am NOT accusing you of that, I can tell you are just trying to work on the arguement. But I am making the suggestion that if you are dealing with someone who needs these details clarified, you're probably wasting your breath.

Chop any part off the body of an adult without thier permission. You will go to jail. Mutilation is mutilation. The point isn't that they are equivalent, the point is that in the west mutilating girls is seen as inhuman, and mutilating boys is accepted as relgious freedom.

Would you be saying this if it was Eric doing the abusing? After all the kids are dependant on his paycheck. Surely they would starve without it. WE are not doing anything to Marry and her family. Marry is responsible for the consequences of her actions. Whether she is banished from society or burned at the stake (I don't know how free societies will handle this problem) , she committed the unethical act and the repercussion on her family are her responsibility. Transferring responsability to others in this case is benevolent sexism which is a very real non-theoretical problem that has wide spread consequences for human beings all over the planet currently.

He isn't avoiding the question. He is asking you for an example that meets the criteria that you claim the above example meets. I am asking for the same thing. In the other thread I have made a case for why your example is flawed. Discussion can not continue until you provide us an example where it is ethically ok for an adult to have sex with a child. If you can not do this, your question is irrelevant.

The "general bias" you are speaking of offends me. Your participation in said bias offends me. People sitting around trying to dream up scenarios in which it might be ok for adults to have sex with children offends me. I feel I have been fairly open minded in this thread considering. Now I am making the claim that you have NOT provided a good example as of yet. Your example is a vanilla case of an adult abusing their power and the dependency of the children on her to manipulate sex out of the deal.The fact that she is a woman changes nothing. The fact that she feels terrible about it changes nothing. The fact that the boys mother doesn't care that he was abused changes nothing. So either we need a new example, or you could just make your point.

I would certainly sepearate the child abuser from the children and contact the authorities. She is a criminal abuser of children, and no amount of housework makes up for the fact that she couldn't keep her dick in her pants when it mattered most. Thought that was kind of obvious from my post. P.S. The genders make a difference in YOUR perceptions, not mine.

I am going to go out a limb here and make the claim that a prerequisite for a person being able to care for children is the ability to not have sex with them. I realize this is an example, but I don't think it illustrates anything but an adult female taking advantage of a child, and then his own mother making excuses for Mary's criminal behavior, while igonoring the injustice done to the child. I don't have stats but I can speak anecdotely about boys I know that were abused by adult female caregivers when they were young. They grew up to be not very well adjusted adults, have issues with promiscuity, and struggle with suicidal thoughts 20 years after the fact. When it was happening to them they thought it was great. Now not so much. I am willing to hear more examples, but I have to be honest, I don't think there is one. Your call. As far as what would I do? Change "Mary" to "John" and "step son" to "step daughter" and it becomes pretty clear what needs to be done.

This does not make sense to me. Can you give me an example?

One would have to be omniscient or think themselves to be in order to objectively measure harms. How a person "feels" can be completely irrelevant to their situation. For example a common occurence on the call in show is a person describes their childhood, professes to Stef that they love their parents, their parents love them, and then Stef points out why neither of these things are true, in spite of the way that the person may feel. So to answer your question about adults having sex with children, I would have to say that the way the child feels about the situation is irrelevant because they are incapable of seeing the situation they are in with the same clarity as an adult. The child may enjoy the sex, and be in love, but it doesn't change the fact that the adult is using a huge emotional and intellectual advantage to influence the behavior of the child, which by the way IS harm.

I am having trouble understanding how the issues zMorris puts forward (besides the criticism of FDR n the current top post) would have caused FDR posters to "badger" him. I don't really see anything in here that my impression of the average FDR-er would be terribly suprised or offended by. ZMorris, are you sure you aren't projecting said badgerment? Or maybe you are interpreting a thing one or two people said as being the opinions of the majority on here?

Ellie, on a lighter note, I assume you are posting from a phone or tablet and you are now yet another innocent victim of the infamous autocorrect.

I didn't say that your frustration came from being female. Here is what I said: Now you can plainly see that I say that BOTH men and women are trained to view sympathy for the male pespective with suspicion and contempt. Interesting that you missed the word "men" in that sentence. ;P

Not to be nitpicky, but we did compile our php, it runs faster, and is more secure that way.

The BSD license (and there are several so this is a generalization) is similar to GPL except that you are not required to share back your changes in most cases. You can if you want to, and there is a strong case to be made why a company might want to share back their changes. Say you've built something that runs on BSD and you had to pay prorgammers to build it. If you close source the code, then anytime BSD updates break your code, you have to hire people back to fix it up. If you share it back (and it is a useful feature) then there is a good chance it will be maintained by the community. My issues with GPL are for example with website building. I don't do much of that myself, but I did work with a small company that did for awhile. They built very complex websites for businesses, sites with huge custom interactive databases that took much more time and energy to develop than your average site. A ton of legwork and meetings, and planning and a lot of invesment on the sales end. And it seemed without fail each client would hire them to get the site built, and then as soon as it was up and running, the client would dump them (because they weren't cheap, and the work they did was complex) demand a copy of the code and hire some guy working out of his basement to take it from there. It was a double loss in the sense that not only were they losing a client, but they were essentially being forced to teach their competition how to do what they do.

What do you mean by "both sets of facts"? And who is "some people"? And why are two men having a conversation about the perils men face when dealing with the opposite sex obligated to throw in any sort of female perspective at all? Do you do that when you talk to your girlfriends?

Thank you for that. I had not thought of it that way before. Wow. I just recently switched over from developing on Gnu/Linux platforms to BSD, and felt guilty about liking it better (because it is!) Now I can tell the RMS in my head that although I respect his contribution to free software, I can not support the initiation of the use of force.

I assume you mean that the GPL requires the state to enforce it?

This post is for the geeks out there in the free/open software movement. I have to say that the movement itself seems to be coming over the hill at this point and with the gains in the server and mobile phones markets plus the usability of the systems it seems only a matter of time before free/open software becomes the dominant force in the industry. I know that in a free society IP will be different than it is now, but we have to work with what we've got now. I was hugely inspired by Richard Stallman as I was getting into Gnu/Linux about 8 years ago. I really appreciate the effort he put into trying to provide free software to the world. When I started out I was sure that all of my work would be GPL, but as I get more into the business I can see that the BSD license philosophy has a very convincing counterpoint to the GPL. The question I have is, which license is more free? The one that ensure's the user's freedom? Or the one that ensure's the freedom of the redistributors?

I found the show in question to be inspirational and several times during the call in question I jumped up and hollered "Hells yea!" at the top of my lungs. Of course you found it frustrating, our culture trains men and women to veiw men as disposable and even the slightest advocacy or sympathy on men's behalf is generally viewed with suspicion and contempt.

I agree with all of you that pedestrians need to have a healthy respect for the laws of physics, and that children need to be taught all of this as well. I totally agree. But if you look at human behavior and how it responds to laws and "rules of the road" you can see that humans will do very stupid things if they think it is their right to do so. Jorell you mentioned people blindly walking into crosswalks ... etc, and I can tell you that where I live in certain parts of the city it is actually well known that there are a number of people that will walk out in front of you in traffic crosswalk or no. I think they do this because the laws are "pro-pedestrian", and as an expression of power, in the face of feeling powerless. Now a pedestrian behaving in this way for whatever reason is not going to do much damage to anyone but himself. Now imagine if the the laws were the other way around and they were "pro-motorist". I have to assume that there would just as many foolish self centered people, doing stupid things, and justifying it with "the rules of the road". But in this case you would have almost no damage to the person making the stupid decision, and death and maiming for the person on the receiving end. For the record I am an avid bicyclist, so I might be just as Jaded about motorists.

This is valid IF you assume that cars are the only kind of traffic that should be on roads, which I don't subscribe to (bicycles, horses, pedestrians ...etc.) . Just pointing that out in case you hadn't thought of it, a lot of people haven't, because so many people exclusively use cars. One could say if you choose to ride around in a 2000 pound machine it is your responsibility not to wreck it into any of the rest of us. Obviously there is grey area to this, if I jump out in front of your car ... etc, but the road is full of all sorts of pedestrians, crossing the street, getting into their cars, loading things into their cars. I don't know that I can agree with the idea that humans "need little more than to... not be on the road".

Having a dangler = more likely to be convicted, and more jail time. Approximately 60% more in both cases. This does not surprise me in the least. If the boyfriend was guilty of covering up, then the girlfriend is guilty of covering up^2.