www.boards.straightdope.com

Doreain #psycho #sexist #dunning-kruger boards.straightdope.com

[ Context: about a grown adult chatting with minors online ]
There’s nothing at all wrong with it. Up until the last 20 years, many older men used to enjoy talking with teens, both boys and girls, even having them as friends. Platonic ones, by the way.
..
Interaction with them brings out dreams of our past youth, the* paternal, maternal instincts,* and, with members of the opposite sex, a touch of sexual lure. (Don’t you dare sneer! It’s biology because kids are at their most sexually powerful between 14 and 25. History shows that most children were married from ages 12 to 20. Usually as soon as the girl had her period, she was considered marriage material!! Women reaching 22 without being wed were considered old maids!!) Teens can give off sexual cues without meaning to because of biology.
…
I love talking with teens on the web, watching them around town, listening to them chat in groups in stores, admire their grace and awkwardness as they go through that leggy, big footed state where their limbs seem to grow faster than the rest of them. The girls are cute as heck.
…

The best thing is their simple beauty, their unlined faces and most do not have that awful ‘look’ adults get over race, religion, job conflicts, accumulated emotional injuries, money problems, and all of the beatings a ‘grown up’ gets trying to live.
..
Several years back, I dug up the standard profile of child molesters and read it to find out what one needs to look for and, surprise, surprise! I technically fit the stereotype!!

...
You know you’re not going to go and seduce some kid, so don’t worry. Besides, you might be surprised at the amount of kids who try to seduce their young, good looking teachers in high school, especially by girls. Feel sorry for those male teachers in their twenties when some pretty young thing of 15, oozing sexuality from all pores, just busting with nubility thanks to nature telling her it’s time to reproduce, turns on the heat.

Dinsdale #fundie boards.straightdope.com

Weirdly mixed feelings about Otto Warmbier (American student sentenced to 15 years in N Korea)
He's the guy who decided to go to North Korea for vacation and then tried to swipe one of their propaganda banners. For which, he's just been sentenced to 15 years hard labour
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/north-korea-sentences-american-cllege-student-otto-warmbier-to-15-years-hard-labor/
...

My sympathy ultimately is with the guy, but there's a kernel of annoyance at the fact that he was dumbass enough to choose to go.

Anyone else have thoughts on this?


I'm generally extremely dubious of our national interest in going to any lengths to repatriate Americans who voluntary go to dangerous places. I'd be happy if the strongest State Department warnings essentially said, "Travel here and you're on your own, Bucko!"

Unless there is some huge as yet unseen factor, such as this guy being a CIA agent, he pushes the furthest end of the curve. He oughtn't have gone there, and if he chose to, he oughtn't have done something so stupid. Sucks to be him. Not one scintilla of American attention or interest ought to be committed to earning his release. The only appropriate response ought to be to publicize his case to inform potential travelers, "Don't be like this idiot"

Isamu #psycho boards.straightdope.com

for what crimes would you turn in a loved one

Nothing.

I would have included election tampering, witness bribery, gay bashing and animal abuse.

And I’m appalled that there are significant numbers of people who wouldn’t turn in someone for serious crimes like child rape or serial murders.

Well let me clarify my case. I don’t have any loved ones who could be capable of those things. If they did them, it would mean they were having a major brain malfunction or some similar crisis and I would make sure they got the help they needed, or some kind of isolation, rather than letting the police push them through the legal system into a hellish future of incarceration.

Crazy_canuck #psycho boards.straightdope.com

I voted none of the above. No matter what my loved ones do, I’m not calling the cops.

On the other hand, if I knew for sure that one of my loved ones was raping and/or killing children, an accident would happen. I would give them a quick, clean death at least.

Kombatminipig #psycho boards.straightdope.com


You’d “encourage” him to find another job, but you wouldn’t bother to inform his employer that he has stated he wants to rape the childrn he’s entrusted to take care of?

Yes, for his own sake. He should question why he is in that line of work, and where it’s going to lead him. But I can’t force him to make the choice. Again, flaming liberal speaking. The oldskool kind of liberal.

Personally I’d have little moral problems with beating the living crap out of the individuals who have raped friends of mine, but would that make me unqualified to work in an environment where I come into contact with convicted rapists? I can control my instincts, why shouldn’t he be able to? Slight hyperbole, but merely stating an example.

“Whether he acts on his instincts?” So you’re willing to wait around until AFTER he’s already raped a baby (a BABY) to decide wether it’s dangerous to let someone who says he wants to rape babies take care of babies?

I’m not saying I like the idea, but once again…you’re promoting the punishment of an individual due to what’s inside his head. Lets wander that path a bit further, shall we? Would you like to have him locked up? Forbidden to use the internet? What about castrated?

Bear_Nenno #moonbat boards.straightdope.com

[ on otto warmbier , an american who was sentened to 15 years hard labor in north korea for allegedly stealing a sign]

No mixed thoughts on this one. The guy is a cry baby little thief. He is no more a victim than the kid who was caned in Singapore for vandalism. He is probably a spoiled, self-entitled little brat. Mommy can't fix this one with a call to the teacher. He will have a couple months to let this lesson sink in. He will be released in under a year or so, I bet. No sympathy for the shame he's brought upon himself or his country. And on top of it all, he empowers an enemy of the United States and the entire western world by sobbing out that pre-written story about how the America Government made him do it. I hope he spends at least the next 5 years over there planting apple trees. At least 5. Fuck this guy.

Little_Nemo #psycho #sexist boards.straightdope.com

[on the brock turner case]


He had his choice of any set of words in the English language to protect his son. He chose “20 minutes of action.”
I was about to compose a sample statement to show how simple it is to write a tasteful statement that acknowledges the horror of the crime and places responsibility while pleading for leniency. But I don’t need to do take- you can imagine it. It’s not that hard to say something that isn’t reprehensible.

I don’t blame a parent for saying contemptible things in defense of their child. I’m not a parent but if I was I’d be willing to slander, defame, and lie about somebody if it kept my kid out of prison.

Ranchoth #fundie boards.straightdope.com

Well, I got to figure that with the nuke example, with the stakes that high, I really don't have much to lose. Maybe the torture won't work, but there's a chance that it might, and the bomb can be stopped. If we don't torture him, there's no chance. It's as good as if I set the bomb off myself.

Either way, I've got the blood of at least one person on my hands—I just have the chance to keep the blood of 999,999 others off of them.

Of course, there's also the Realpolitik take on the situation—stopping the bomb might prevent a nuclear retaliation on the terror group and/or any country that was harboring them, which could conceivably be much MORE than a million people. Especially if there was a risk of word getting out that a government agent had the chance to get information out of the terrorist that could have stopped the bomb, but didn't, because he thought it would be immoral—otherwise, the government risks getting voted out (or toppled) in exchange for the kind of leaders who'd vow to never let that massacre happen again. At any cost.

In practical terms, that'd probably set back the cause of human rights and ethical government action back a lot farther and a lot faster than one would-be mass murderer coming to harm, and then quietly "disappearing."


But where do you draw the line? Would you torture an innocent person if it would save a million lives?

Take this for an example...the nuke terrorist has a five year old girl, who he loves dearly. Who you've also managed to take into custody, and is in the next room over.

Fushjoomang #fundie boards.straightdope.com

Dying teen in jail told to ‘suck it up’

MIAMI -- A supervising guard at a juvenile jail told a dying teen to “suck it up” as the boy retched, wept and moaned from stomach pain, evidence given to a grand jury shows.

Some guards tried to get help for 17-year-old Omar Paisley before he died of a burst appendix, the records show, but their supervisors and jail nurses believed he was faking or exaggerating.

“Ain’t nothing wrong with his ass,” one nurse said, according to seven boxes of documents examined by The Miami Herald for a story published Friday.
...
https://www.heraldtribune.com/news/20040228/dying-teen-in-jail-told-to-suck-it-up


Maybe I'm the only one who's seeing the oddity here, but a prisoner who was in for a sentence of unstated length for attacking his neighbor suddenly gets 'ill' on the FIRST day he's there? I'm sorry, but I have no sympathy for this kid. His family, yea, seeing as any death in any family is a personal tragedy, but here's a thought for all you people calling for the heads of those who allowed this kid to die...

Where was he and why was he there?

He was in a jail for attacking his neighbor. He was in JAIL for ATTACKING HIS NEIGHBOR. Oh, let me repeat that just once more, so there is NO question. HE WAS IN JAIL FOR ATTACKING HIS NEIGHBOR.

*sighs* Ok, now, let's move on.

A ruptured appendix, from what I remember on my first-responders class can lead to death in 12-24 hours if surgery is no performed to clean out the lower bowels. What you have here is a punk kid, a criminal, who's been in a jail for (if the timeline provided within the story is accurate) under 48 hours. Now, tell me, at what point did he suddenly feel 'real bad?' From what I remember from my first-responders class, an inflammed pre-rupture appendix is supposed to rate somewhere between "stabbed in the gut" painful and "stabbed in the gut with a rusty knife" painful. If he was able to simply state that "My stomach (hits buzzer, sorry bub, wrong body part!) hurts real bad" then the staff physician ain't going to look for appendicitis. If he'd said something like "I've got a sharp pain below my stomach" then he might have gotten a bit more attention.

As far as symptoms, puking, shitting, and sweating were all symptoms of MY last bout with influenza, so if this guy is doing it, I doubt that anyone's gonna take a second look.

Finally, for those of you who are calling for the head of the nurse who "didn't want to take that shit home to her kids," lets ask what type of nurse was she? Was she a nurse-practicioner? Was she a registered nurse? Was she an LPN? No, the article doesn't say. She may or may not have been qualified to do something. How well stocked was the clinic in this punk's jail? Again, the article doesn't say. You don't know that she could have done anything even if she was inclined to do so. What it does say is that she (the nurse) did come, did examine him (however briefly,) concluded that (in combination with the doctor's previous assessment that it was a stomach virus) "Ain't nothing wrong with his ass" and then proceeded to file the paperwork to get him transferred to a hospital.

Ladies and gentelmen, the folks in the jail did their job. If that kid wasn't a criminal, then maybe he'd be alive today. Isn't this what the same ones of you in the 'dumbass driver, silly car-wreck' type threads refer to as karma? You know, he fucked up, and it came around and bit him in the ass?


You are blaming the kid of being in prison in the first place for his inhumane death caused by negligent nurses and doctors who didn't do their fucking jobs.

You are blaming a teenager (who probably dropped out of school) for not being able to explain clearly where the pain was to a doctor. Moreover, it's all fucking speculation... you don't even fucking know what exactly happened, what the kid said, how he cried...

Fuck you!


Well, yea. Seems you've figured out what I'm trying to get at. It engaged in a criminal behavior, and was found guilty of said behavior before a court of law, and was placed by said court in a juvinile confinement facility for a (as yet unknown) term. If it had not engaged in it's criminal activities, well, then it wouldn't have been hauled in front of a court, sentenced, and jailed, and thus exposed to the (as it seems to be a concensus in here, with myself being the only dissenting voice) incompentent and lazy docs and nurses.

The teenager put himself in this position. The teenager got what he had coming to him. As far as the "What the kid said, how he cried..." bit, go ahead, pull my heart strings (yes, I do have them. I'm not totally inhuman.) In this case, nothing's gonna happen. I reserve my compassion for folks like our fellow Doper "Lady Kate" who caught the shit end of a stick from her SO. I feel badly for the kid who got outed in the thread that "Matt_MCL" put up earlier this week. But these folks didn't get themselves into the prediciments that they were in. Someone else did something to them. The shit in our article here got himself into this prediciment. Sorry, no sympathy here.

What I really want to know is did this kid pray for forgiveness for what he did to get himself into this situation before he died, or did he die believing that he'd done no wrong? If someone can come up with a cite that shows he'd had some remorse for his crimes and expressed it as his time came, the I'll apologize for my words.

The flying dutchman #fundie boards.straightdope.com

was quite disturbed by watching John Walsh describe Foley as a pedophile. The youngest person Foley is known to hit upon was 15 years old.

Lets look at what the
pages
think about Foley

"Almost the first day I got there I was warned," said Mark Beck-Heyman, a San Diego native who served as a page in the House of Representatives in the summer of 1995. "It was no secret that Foley had a special interest in male pages," said Beck-Heyman, adding that Foley, who is now 52, on several occasions asked him out for ice cream.

Another former congressional staff member said he too had been the object of Foley's advances. "It was so well known around the House. Pages passed it along from class to class," said the former aide, adding that when he was 18 a few years ago and working as an intern, Foley approached him at a bar near the Capitol and asked for his e-mail address.
The first thing to take note of is that 18 is not to old for Foley. It is quite clear that he does take an interest in post pubescent young men.

The second thing I notice is that all the pages were made aware of his interest from the gitgo. These kids aren't victims. They are not alone as prey. They had each other and the power to take him down if they wanted to but preferred not to during their time as pages.

What strikes me is that I can so identify with these kids. In my teenage years in the small town of Niagara on the Lake, Ontario, there was a wealthy eye doctor by the name of Dr Mitchell, a community benefactor to the Shaw Festival who was well known by all the teenage boys for being a queer. He hit on a lot of us. He hit on me when I was 14 or 15. To this day I do not know if the adults were aware but all us kids knew, he was a middle aged bachelor, talked "queer" and defined the concept of homosexuality for us. None of us kids that I know of, felt like victims. We reported these incidents to each other.

When I began to hear of gay bashing in general, it is these incidents which I perceived as the reason for a few hotheaded guys who felt the need for retribution.

So lets get a sense of right and wrong here. Teenage girls get hit on all the time by older men. Young is preferred for a sexual object, hence the multi billion dollar industry for the maintenance of youth. Outside the realm of sexual harrassment, there are no penalties where no physical contact has occurred.

So why should that be any different for homosexual hitting?

Foley is not a pedophile. He is however very guilty of sexual harrassment in the work place. I think we need to keep the perspective in mind.

MrDibble #fundie boards.straightdope.com

Ferchrissakes, if he'd given us his word that he was a stamp collector, no one would give a shit. But, "I really want to have sex with children," is not something that rational people will just shine on. And most normal people wouldn't count that as an asset on a baby-sitter's application form either


I didn't say he'd be my first choice of babysitter, but I don't see paedophilia as necessarily an automatic disqualifier anymore than being a bestialist means you can't look after my dog. What I said was if he was a friend of mine (like all my other sitters) and I knew he was an out paedophile, I would still let him look after my kid. Because, call me crazy, but I trust my friends not to hurt my kid (or they wouldn't be my friend), and anyway, I trust people not to act on their every impulse at any opportunity.

Y'all are treating him like he'd be a junkie in a room full of drugs. I'd treat him like a person with a particular attraction in a situation where that's not particularly relevant to the job at hand. IOW, I'd expect a modicum of self control from him, just like I'd trust a gay friend who thought I was hot (of which I have had a couple) not to take advantage of me when I'm drunk, or a straight friend not to try and peek at my wife changing her clothes. You know - civilized behaviour?

atomicbadgerrace #fundie boards.straightdope.com


We're not talking about wishing something was legal in a vast generic sense, we're talking about someone who is responsible for the care of small children telling you he would like to rape them. You're saying this is a job he should be permitted to keep?

Having no reason to believe that he would act on his desires or otherwise commit a crime, yes.

Yogsothoth #fundie boards.straightdope.com

[on someone confessing to being a pedophile]

I think most people choose to focus too much on the child victims in this issue instead of the person whose sexuality forces him to have these thoughts (Personally, I hate children so I have no problems ignoring their side ).

No rumor or inuendo here, though. The OP has stated his problem clearly. Still let your kid stay with him?


Well, I've always believed in second chances. If this guy's been around kids without doing them harm, then I'll take my chances.

Personally, I think American society makes too big of a deal out of sex. Like, monstrously big. To the point where I feel that this shit cannot go on without some kind of violent revolution.

Tie that in to my own personal beliefs that may scare people, and it makes me think that it would be me overreacting if I were to simply hear somebody talk about this and immediately become like one of those overprotective parents that I hate. I do not want to become like those people. If I did not trust Pduol when he's already admitted these feelings, then I would be like those people.

Hell, there are plenty of people I would beat up, kill, or otherwise harm if given the chance. I don't do it because I would go to jail. To me, that's a big motivator for me to stay on the law-abiding side. Just hearing Pduol agonize over his lot in life is enough to convince me that there are plenty of others who feel the same way. The threat of prison is there, don't discount it.

So yes, I would allow him to babysit my 11 year old daughter.

Rachellelogram #fundie boards.straightdope.com

[ on turning in a murderer . ]

If my suspicions are right and he is guilty, then he didn't commit a perfect crime. Therefore, any investigators worth their salt should have been able to crack the case. I don't feel obligated to go out of my way and make their job any easier.

His4ever #fundie boards.straightdope.com

[To people who've had Near Death Experiences in which angels told them you only need to be fairly good to get to Heaven]

Of course, you've already told me that you will never consider my beliefs to be truth. It really saddens me to see you deceived in this way by these "beings of light" and "spirit guides". They give you these wonderful feelings of love love love and make you feel good so you believe whatever they tell you. It's even sadder that people will read the things you say and believe them without seeing what God has to say about it. But, then, that doesn't matter to you either because I remember you told me that the Bible isn't the authority for your life. I've said this to NDEers before and I'll say it again. Any being of light you see in an NDE that tells you anything that contradicts the word of God, does not come from Him but is a deceiving, lying spirit. The reason? To get you to think that you're okay, you're going to heaven no matter what so there's nothing for you to do. You can ignore most of that stuffy old Bible just practive love love love. You don't need Christ. That is an out and out lie, Lekatt! If you refuse to accept the Way that God has provided for you (and that Way is Jesus Christ and His death for you) I can tell you on the authority of God's word that you'll never ever see heaven. I pray your eyes will be opened one day, sir, before it's too late.

Whynot #fundie boards.straightdope.com

And, while we're at it, why don't we stop teaching women that the worst thing that could ever happen to them, worse than death itself, is to be raped?

I mean, I've been there, and granted, it ain't fun. But it's also not the end of the world. There's less physical damage and risk of death with a garden variety rape than to a gunshot wound. The only reason there's more psychological trauma to rape than to mugging is because we teach girls they're "ruined" if they're raped. We work them into a state of hysteria because they've been irreparably violated and tell them they're going to be fucked up for years because of this. It's total patriarchal women-as-property antiquated bullshit. It's root is the exact same female oppression mentality which leads fathers to kill their daughters after rape because they've disgraced the family.

Jragon #fundie boards.straightdope.com

I've been bouncing this around in my head for a while, but I'm not really a debater (at least online) so I've somewhat avoided posting this. I get this feeling that we're doing more harm than good by calling for the death of molesters, assuming kids are now traumatized and whatnot. Mostly I'm wondering about the latter.

I mean, is there any real reason to be traumatized? When you really get down to it, what exactly did the molester do? Took advantage of the kid, breached the trust barrier, now that's bad, even worse when it's a loved one, but is it really so much worse than, say, cheating on a spouse or walking out on your family when things get bad? Not if you accept (as people commonly seem to on this bored) that sex isn't particularly sacred and we treat it with too many hush's whispers and dodges.

The kid didn't know what they were doing, as far as Jenny's concerned all she did was make Uncle Ned feel good until he told her to stop, I'm not saying lie to them and say what Uncle Ned told her to do wasn't bad, but when we overreact, coddle them, and tell them how it's SO bad, and how everyone is SO sorry and then later in life seeing all these highly publicized trials and calls for death on molesters... well, it's not a surprise they break down crying and BSOD as far as relationships go, because after seeing all that if they weren't quite convinced they were a victim they're DAMN sure now and will begin to think like a victim. I think we aggravate the issue too much, if we didn't treat child sex crimes as such a be all end all issue I think the children could grow up a lot happier because they'd know they had trust broken and be hurt there, but wouldn't be told they're SUCH a victim all the time and probably wouldn't have issues near as bad as they do when they're convinced they had one of the Ultimate Crimes™ perpetrated against them. Not to mention these paralyzing issues don't really seem to manifest until well after the incident, i.e. once they understand what happened (which is information entirely gleaned from people telling them what happened, like that they were victimized).

Now obviously this would require a major reworking of social mores, so this is more of a thought experiment, but do you think we needlessly aggravate paedophilia (and possibly ephebophilia) issues to the point where it hurts the children more than it deters the offenders (In other words, helps more than it hurts)?

WhyNot #fundie boards.straightdope.com

This post is partly a FYI follow-up to two previous threads (see below), and also looking for advice or opinions on the situation.

Very brief summary version: My boyfriend "Greg" has 3 children with his ex-wife "Susan." Susan is remarried to a man I'll call "Stepfather." Stepfather pleaded no contest to child molestation charges involving an unrelated 13-year-old girl, and will be sentenced in a month. This is a felony and requires lifelong sex offender registration. What should Greg do


Where do the kids want to be? I'm not saying it should be entirely up to them, but if this is an isolated incident, is it worth uprooting them across state lines, losing all their friends and schools and social networks, not to mention a stay at home mother, to come live with a dad who works full time? They've already indicated that they love their stepfather and want him to live with them once.


Susanann #fundie boards.straightdope.com

Executions only take a lot of time and resources today, because there are so few of them today.

In the old days, executions were carried out fairly quickly, cheaply, and took very little resources.

After we execute the first 10 or 20 thousand women and doctors, the executions will go quite smoothly and quickly.

I dont know if the number of abortions will decrease(except in the cases of repeat offendors- there wont be any), that is speculation, but if fewer women have abortions because of the death penalty, if more women choose to use birth control, then all the better.

The war on drugs takes a lot of time and resources because we dont execute offendors. You cant compare apples and oranges. Not the same thing.

Tripolar #fundie boards.straightdope.com

Scenario 1: The Feds have captured a man involved in an extremist militia group. Through surveillance they have determined he was/is involved in the planning of an upcoming terrorist attack. Specifically, an impending bomb attack in a populated area, like a shopping mall or high street - somewhere that will potentially cause hundreds of casualties. Authorities are sweeping all likely buildings, but with no concrete details it's unlikely to be successful. Under standard interrogation he reveals that the bomb has been planted and the clock is ticking - it will explode in about 12 hours, but refuses to divulge its location. What do you do?

Scenario 2: The CIA have picked up a leading terror suspect. He is suspected of stealing a nuclear device from the Ruskies and according to surveillance the CIA has firm reason to believe that he is currently shipping it to your country - you have 12 hours maximum before the ship reaches any destination in your country, figuring in loading and unloading times. Unfortunately they haven't picked up the name of the ship or its destination, and once again he'd refusing to talk. The authorities are on the lookout for suspicious activity around ports, but without more concrete details there's a good chance that the stolen nuke will slip through and cause potentially millions of casualties. He refuses to say anything. What do you do?

Scenario 3: A ruthless criminal gang have kidnapped your close loved ones - wife/mother/sister/daughter/husband/father/brother/son, delete as applicable. You receive note asking for a ransom of $1 million in 12 hours. The police tell you that in 100% of cases involving this particular gang, even if the ransom is delivered the captees are murdered anyway. Fortunately meticulous forensics performed on the ransom note - DNA and fingerprints - are already on the police radar and they pick up the suspect. They recognise him as one of the head-honchos of the gang who, if he doesn't know where your family are, at least knows where to find someone who does. He's the only lead you have, but isn't saying a word. What do you do?

All 3 scenarios, "I'd personally break out the thumbscrews and harsh methods right away."

These scenarios aren't real and don't happen. But if they did, I wouldn't hesitate. Of course it would be part of a more complex good cop/bad cop setup, but I'd prefer to be the bad cop.

In each of these cases you present some kind of assurance that the suspect has actual information that could be revealed. But only an idiot says "I know where the bomb is and I won't tell you" because he is inviting torture. Now if you have nothing but suspicion, you can't use torture, because that would make you evil. But if I do know someone has information that would save lives and might be revealed by torture, I have no reason to hesitate.

Ultravires #fundie boards.straightdope.com

on legalizing prostitution


I'm still confused by the two sides of the argument about the rape question. I have understood that rape is punished FAR in excess of battery or aggravated battery because of the special place we have for the rights of a woman and her chastity.

Now, if a woman is on record as simply offering her body for money, any idea of a special protection for sex goes out the window, and posters in this thread readily admit that selling sex is not morally different from selling hamburgers.

But in the same scheme, why should we keep the heightened protections for rape when the transaction falls apart? If sex is not special and a woman has regularly consented to vaginal penetration for money by strangers, why when one particular stranger's transaction falls apart should the prostitute be protected by a law designed to protect the Virgin Mary?

I don't see how it can be both ways. Either prostitution should be illegal (or at least considered legal but with a stigma attached) and rape laws enforced or prostitution should be treated like selling anything else with a violation of the terms of that contract treated like everything else.

If I don't pay my water bill, I don't get 25 to life in prison..

[[Your last point would indicate that rape is treated as a lesser crime when the victim is a 'slut' than when she married her high school sweet hart. Is this the case in the US? Are damages/prison terms determined by the sexual past of the victim?]]


Any other crime is treated this way. Some are even codified into law. In Florida, a battery against a person over age 65 is punished more severely than a battery against someone younger.

I think were it not for the politicization of the issue, we could all agree that a prostitute would feel less damage from a rape than would a nun. We can't say that in polite society, though, so we pretend its all the same.

DrDeth #fundie boards.straightdope.com

Well- of course- the MAKING of hard-core child porn is harmful to the child, and is a heinous crime.

But then after that you get into waters where things aren't as clear. If the "kiddie porn" only involves nudity- no actual sex- it that harmful to the child? Some would say it's just our Victorian prudishness that says "the naked body is an obcene thing", an dthat "nudity is a natural and good thing".

I know one can argue that buying kiddy porn aids ands abets the person who makes it, who possibly wouldn't make it except for the chance someone would buy it. But since there were penty of sites where perverts would download for free their "work", it seems like a lot of the current kiddie porn swirling around out there isn't commercial in it's original purpose. Then again- if one doesn't buy it, but just looks at it- it's going to be hard to say that that hurts the child who was the victim.

It has been hotly debated- even here- whther or not simple "possession" of "kiddy" porn should be such a serious crime.

Note- I am not advocating "free kiddie porn"- I am just playing the "Devils Advocate" and pointing out that not all agree that "child pornography is a bad thing". It's a complex moral subject, not a simplistic one.

Fotheringay-Phipps #fundie boards.straightdope.com

ISTM that Dottie Sandusky and the posters to this thread share a common premise, i.e. that the accusations against Sandusky are all-or-nothing. Either all are true down to the last detail, or all are false and Sandusky is a persecuted saint.

The reality is that it's possible that some accusations are true and some are not, and within valid accusations, that some details are true and some are not. Meaning that while based on all evidence Sandusky was a serial child molestor, that does not preclude the possibility that other opportunists also jumped in with a chance to score a financial settlement, settle an old score or whatever. And it does not preclude the possibility that some genuine victims are misremembering (or possibly even misrepresenting) details of or relating to their abuse.

So it's possible - just possible - that Dottie Sandusky is simply relating the truth as she knows it: she did not in fact ever hear any suspicious sounds coming from that basement. And either the victim in that case was not a genuine victim, or he was a genuine victim who misrembered after the years how loud the sounds were, or perhaps even misjudged it at the time etc. etc.


Where she's going wrong - assuming this is true - is in making the leap to the assumption that this accuser's entire story must be fake, and that the other accusers' stories must also be fake, and so on. However, this is a premise shared with many others on the other side of the issue, who assume that since the evidence shows Sandusky to be a serial molestor it must follow that the particular detail of this kid making noise in the basement must also be true.

View Post
So, she should call her own son a liar and ignore that her husband molested him? And, if she doesn't do that, but accepts that her son is telling the truth, then what - she should believe that he was molested, but all of the other kids were lying? OK, so maybe not all of them - maybe she just believes he moslested half of them - does that really change anything at all? I think if she said, "yeah, turns out he was a serial molester, but I never heard anything from the basement that one time" people might actually buy it. But right now she's landing square in the 'blind eye' camp and it's not unreasonable to assume she probably knew something was going on and chose not look too hard.

I wouldn't put too much into the "own son" bit.

Matt Sandusky is not the Sandusky's biological son and is not someone who was raised by the Sanduskys. He is a former juvenile delinquent who became their foster child at the age of 17 and was adopted at age 18. (
cite
.)

There's no particular reason for Mrs. Sandusky to find Matt Sandusky any more credible than any other accuser, and her feeling of betrayal would be even stronger.

Napier, Lionsib, even Sven ,Joey p, infovore #fundie boards.straightdope.com

on being friends with a pedophile that actively downloads real child porn


Napier: Tough one. I said I'd remain his friend, but without having experienced this scenario I can't say I'm sure


LIONsob: Stay friends and think that the prosecution is politicaly motivated thought-policing.


Joey P : I'd feel sorry for him but remain friends with him. He knows he has a problem and he deals with it in such a way that he's not harming anyone. What he does in his own house, by himself is his business, not mine, not anyone elses.


even sven: I'd have no problem remaining friends with him. People have all sorts of strange fantasies, and as long as you can recognize the difference between fantasy and reality, I see nothing wrong with beating off to whatever.

infovoreAs long as Al has never done anything to a real child and proactively keeps himself away from children, I would remain his friend. I would feel very sorry for him and it would probably squick me out--I'm not sure that the friendship would continue in the same form that it did before the material was discovered. But as long as he had not and would not hurt, bother, or otherwise cause mental or physical harm to actual kids, then yes, I'd stay his friend.

DrDeth #fundie boards.straightdope.com


Being sexually attracted to 16yo girls is not a Perversion. It's illegal to act on, yes, and it should be, but it doesnt mean you're a pervert. Let me put it this way: you are at a bank. You see a bank employee wheel a cart loaded with cash into the vault. Are you a sicko pervert if yu think "Man, I'd like to get my hands on that cash?" No. What's wrong is when you act on it. 16 yo girls are sexually mature. Some few are even mentally mature. You can even marry one perfectly legally in many states. But you cant have sex with one outside of marriage. If a 21yo man marries a 16 yo girl legally, is he some sort of pervert for consummating the marriage during the honeymoon?

Now, being a true pedophile is being a sick pervert. That's being attracted to a person who is not sexualy mature.

Rachellelogram #fundie boards.straightdope.com

on sanduskys wife turning a blind eye to her husband molesting children


A spouse cannot be compelled to testify against a spouse for a reason. They're a single unit in the eyes of the law, as well as emotionally (for many/most couples). And come on, they are both old as fuck. It's way less upsetting to think that your husband was pilloried unfairly in court than it is to accept that you are married to a child molester--even if that does mean calling dozens of victims liars. It's easy to talk tough online. But I'm not even married yet, and I can't say I would likely do anything differently in her position.

bengangmo #fundie boards.straightdope.com

1. Of course for violent / forced rape father's rights are terminated (going by layman's terms of forced / violent - I know that by definition, rape is forced)
2. If the lady is found to have raped the man, her rights should be terminated
3. If it is not so clear cut (statutory rape of a 17yr old for example) then it needs to be taken on a case by case basis
4. If it is (non violent) date rape or rape of a drunk (but not comatose) woman, there is nothing that would automatically make me assume the father is not fit to be a daddy (although the cards would be stacked against him, and he would need to prove himself fit)

Several Jehovah's Witnesses #fundie boards.straightdope.com

[Post written by Annie-Xmas]

My Jehovah's Witnesses story turned me off them forever:

My sister the lesbian has one biological daughter, who is a devout JW. My sister and her partner were in a terrible car crash in California and she needed a blood transfusion. Her partner didn't have the authority to approve it. Her daughter, the devout JW, runs to the hospital and denies permission. The hospital calls me, faxes me the papers in New Jersey, I sign them and fax them back, and the transfusion is approved.

I am a raving maniac over the whole thing, very worried about my sister. Fifteen minutes later two JW's come into my office and start lecturing me about how I doomed my sister the lesiban with a blood transfusion.

I gave it to them with both barrels. I told them if they ever came into my place of business with their shitty religion again, I would call the cops and file a lawsuit. I told them I was not a believer of any religion that would let people die rather than receiving medical treatment. I told them my sister was a devout lesbian and wasn't going to convert.

They told me they hoped my sister got hepatitus from the transfusion and left.

[Bolding mine]

Kambuckta #fundie boards.straightdope.com

Go fuck yourself Mrs. Sandusky

liar liar soul on fire
Now, now, woman. Ya'll reap what you sow.

He's raping little boys for years in the basement, and you never heard anything? Never saw anything? You make Helen Keller look like an eagle-eyed lookout.

For shame, you whining fuck. For shame.


Here's a woman who has spent how ever many years being married to an upright citizen, a man who has coached kids, probably attends church weekly and is for all intents and purposes a bloke beyond moral reproach.

Then the shit hits the fan with allegations, charges and sentences of child abuse.

If you were his wife, how would you respond? Me? I'd probably be in denial as well. To acknowledge otherwise would shatter my entire life. It would mean that *my* life had been a lie from the outset, that things I might have seen or heard along the way were not just innocent happenings, but toxic and horrid scenes. It would mean I'd have to let go of EVERYTHING I'd ever held precious. It'd mean that I was equally culpable even though I had nothing to do with the crimes.

Damn.....whatever Sandusky has done, it's just wrong to implicate his wife (and by extension, his kids) in the crimes. At the same time, it's time for her now to let him go and to get on with a life without him if she can.

Rock, hard place, fuck I'm glad it's not me.

llcoolbj77 #fundie boards.straightdope.com

can't believe I am wading in to this, but here goes...

I am a public defender representing mostly juveniles; including several juvenile sex offenders. I have two small children, and most of the prosecutors I work with have small children. We often discuss what we would do if we caught our kids acting out sexually. And it is a fucking quagmire.

Let me say, with some authority, that going the court route can be helpful. With the right combination of prosecutor, judge, attorney, probation officer, therapist, parents, race, socioeconomic background, and resources, there can be some real success with juvenile sex offenders. And the recidivism rates are much lower than with adults. HOWEVER, the stars do not usually align that way. Take any one of those factors out, and things can get bad really quickly.

Let's assume Josh was caught in my jurisdiction. He is 14. He had multiple victims, with multiple incidents, and some as young as 5. He is white, with involved parents, so maybe the prosecutor would not automatically jump to certifying him as an adult. But they might try. He could not go home, so unless the family could afford residential treatment, he would be in juvenile detention. His psychosexual eval (with the facts we know) would put him at a moderate to high risk level to recidivate. If he's lucky, he escapes with no felony convictions. If he's not, he gets juvenile felony convictions and the juvenile registry. He is at risk, however, for being certified as an adult, prison time (in adult prison) and the adult sex offender registry. Life over. Game over. Done. And don't forget what CPS might do with all the other kids in the home that Mom and Dad were not able to protect.

Knowing all this... what would I do? If my sweet kid did something unspeakable to my other sweet kid? I don't know. I would do everything in my power to protect both children.

Kalhoun #fundie boards.straightdope.com

on a woman named jenny who raped a comatose man


I'm not sure you can call it rape, per se, if the person isn't wielding the humiliation or soul-crushing dominance (neither of which were intended by Jenny) a rapist inflicts on his victim. There was no anger here. As I recall he was a complete vegetable. He was no longer even "arp"-ing, was he? I'm not saying that I think people are free to go around having sex with the mentally retarded or damaged. But I'm also not sure that "rape" is what we should call this particular act.

Susanann #fundie boards.straightdope.com

I definitely prefer execution [as a punishment for abortion], because the cost of imprisoning 30 million baby murderers for life, would be in the trillions of dollars. Perhaps many states who dont have the death penalty, would change and reinstate the death penalty under the staggering costs of imprisoning so many doctors, nurses, and women.

Shagnasty #fundie boards.straightdope.com

in a thread about a guy being executed for transporting drugs in singapore

Singapore wants to run a law enforcement and deterrent experiment that fits in with their culture and goals as well as protects its citizens from a threat up to and including death themselves. I see no problem with that. The guy chose to play the game and lost. The game was completely consensual from the start just like two high school kids playing chicken. Sure, it is a shame when someone dies but you can't really call anyone a victim.

I agree with everything you said Broomstick. I am having a really hard time trying to understand the opposing viewpoint on this one. Singapore doesn't want to kill anyone. They don't want people to courier drugs through or into their country. If someone does, they have to follow through with the promise. This guy was willing to assume the rewards (cash) for a job with a very specific set of risks. The job paid a lot because those risk were there.

People die everyday. This guy is very lucky because he gets to die under circumstances that he conscientiously chose. Most people don't have that luxury.I am having problems with some of the questions thrown around. "Wouldn't you have a problem with an American woman getting executed in the Sudan for consciously engaging in this or that illegal thing?"
Hell, fuck, no. No unless she was wrongfully prosecuted, framed, or illegally coerced. One of the greatest human freedoms is to assume risk for conscience actions up to and including death. Anyone can opt out of that arrangement at any time.
Where is the call for tolerance of other cultures here? Singapore has a very thriving and well established culture. They don't randomly pick people to execute or torture I fail to see the problem. Does the tolerance of other cultures only extend to somewhat Americanized people that like to smoke pot?


Some of the legitimate criticisms of death penalty in the U.S. are that it takes too long and that it is unevenly applied. That makes it a less effective deterrent as well as needlessly expensive. Singapore is a good model in this regard. They institute it in a way that is fair and efficient. We should work to emulate their model. Kooks among us seem to love implementing Asian ideas when it comes to crackpot medicine and other things but draw the line when it comes to effective social and legal measures.

Again, why are so many people bigoted against a prosperous culture that most of their citizens admire and outsiders are never forced to step foot in? You should think about your level of cultural tolerance. You can't just take the superficial fruit-loop parts from around the world and call yourself enlightened. This is the real deal. Bigotry is frowned upon.
...

No, you are missing the point. It doesn't matter that that's the law in Singapore. What matters is that Singapore's law is wrong.

Why is the death penalty "wrong" in this case? If I say it is "right" two times does that cancel out yours? Drug trafficking is wrong on many levels and directly affects other people up to and including death of users and innocents. It is in no way comparable to simply "being" Jewish or anything else. It is an actively chosen and plotted crime with great risks to individuals and societies.

How is the law wrong in your own words? You must be evaluating it according to some external criteria. Is it direct from the word of God or is just part of a quasi-religious humanistic belief? Where did you get this information and how did you process it?

I just look at it like Singapore really doesn't want drugs in their country. That is understandable and it is hardly a victimless crime. People know the consequences and the reason for engaging in it is almost purely financial. I see no problem in opening it up detention, whipping, the death penalty, or live slow dissection if that is what they think is best.

...

Shagnasty, you refute that "societal context" has any relevance to the situation. However, here you admit that alcohol can be a drug with a terrible influence in some people's lives, and then condemn illegal drug dealers.

My "societal context" rebuttal simply means that the harm drug and alcohol addiction causes can't be controlled by overriding social influences nor can its effects be anything other than detrimental in any society. Those are fundamental physiological and psychological processes and they have nothing to do with any society once you get to the point of addiction.

You are correct that the re-legalization of alcohol was probably the best alternative in the U.S. That isn't necessarily true when you talk about crack, the opiates, and meth.

I am a libertarian. That means that I believe in few restrictions on individual freedom and that the ultimate accountability lies with the individual. I was once for the legalization of drugs. However, I sat down one night and tried to come up with a realistic way that this would be implemented. I could not do it. I have come to the conclusion that like, nuclear weapons, a good libertarian can be against the legalization of some things that cause mass harm.

I have yet to hear a workable plan on how the legalization of hard drugs would work at a detailed level. I would love to hear one.

Bible Man #fundie boards.straightdope.com

[On the collection of all factual material that exists]

Yes, all facts come from a special collection of 66 books written by 40 different authors who wrote over a period of 1500 years.

[on ignoring pesky facts that get in the way of his view of the Bible]

no one except Bible believers knows when the sun was actually formed

[bearing false witness in regard to current evolutionary theory with bonus smarmy attitude]

Microevolution: the beaks of succeeding generations of finches will adapt to their environmental conditions.
Macroevolution: Frogs will eventually sprout wings and fly away, monkeys will all turn into men, and given enough time and chance that chair you're sitting in will eventually get up and walk out of the room.
The first type has happened on a daily basis since creation. The second type has never happened and never will. Further, if all species had been formed this way as the theory postulates, there would be massive evidence for it literally at our feet - there is none. It's a hopelessly bankrupt theory while ironically, anyone who believes it might actually be the only slim chance to validate it - obviously having somewhat less evolved reasoning powers.

[On where he gets his belief that his interpretation is, well, Gospel]

Jesus again told me that all your bizarre personal beliefs about the Bible are also false and come from listening to the doctrines of demons. The spirit you are listening to is not the Holy Spirit but a lying spirit, and to claim otherwise is blasphemy on your part.

Alan smithee #fundie boards.straightdope.com

on being friends with a pedophile that actively downloads real child porn


Hell, I'll go further than most, and say that I would continue to be friends with him even if he had actually done something provided that all of the following conditions were met: He was caught and convicted, he was punished, he complied with all of the elements of legal supervision (parole, registration as a sex offender, etc.), he admits what he did, he feels bad about it, it happened no more than once, he was under 22 when it happened, it has been at least 10 years since it happened, and all the other conditions of the OP are met.

I believe in judging people as they are now. It would take a lot of convincing for me to believe that all of those conditions were met (and of course things like his age and the length of time are not bright lines), but if he is really as good a friend as described, I think it would be possible.

I will add the following caveats: I have no kids. If I did, I think I'd still be friends under the OP's conditions, but very likely not if he'd actually done anything. I'm sure I'd agonize over it no matter what. And finally, I'm not sure this makes me a better person. My natural tendency is to react to people based on what I actually see, not on what else I know about them. It's easy to make this into a virtue, but it could just as much be moral laziness. Along with this is the fact that I don't tend to form extremely close friendships, so what I'm picturing as a continued friendship may be just an aquaintenceship to someone else.

Oh, and regarding the legal aspect, I voted that he would be convicted and it would stand (assuming he was convicted of obscenity, not child pornography), but actually, I believe that most people in that situation would plead guilty and not appeal it only to get the whole ordeal over with. (A decision they would possibly regret, but nevertheless what they would do. Fighting a legal battle is very expensive and extremely stressful and this story would undoubtedly be in the press a great deal while it was ongoing in court.)

Surreal #fundie boards.straightdope.com

How Is A 'Wet Willy' So Different From Rape?

For those of you who are unfamiliar with the term, a 'wet willy' is a procedure typically performed by children whereby the perpetrator sneaks up behind the victim, moistens his or her pinky fingers by licking them, then proceeds to shove them into the victim's ears.

So here we have a procedure that involves the use of an appendage to perform forcible penetration of up to 2 orifices, accompanied by a transference of bodily fluids-- exactly what you would have with rape.

But even though these 2 concepts are essentially identical, our society has a vastly different perception of them. One thing is viewed as the worst thing you can possibly do to a person short of killing them, while the other is viewed a harmless joke that school children play on one another.

I know some of you will try to argue that rape is inherently different because it carries the risk of pregnancy. But would these people contend that a woman who is post-menopausal who gets raped is getting no more than a wet willy? I doubt it. Besides, the pregnancy risk can be eliminated by taking emergency contraceptive within 72 hours of the event.

Others would argue that rape is much worse because of the disease potential. But would these people say that the rape is no big deal if a condom was used, or if the victim didn't get any diseases?

So exactly what is the logic behind the vast difference in our society's perceptions of the criminality and victimization level between a rape and a wet willy? Which level of response would be appropriate in order to be consistent-- should we treat wet willy victims like we do rape victims, or should we treat rape victims like we do wet willy victims??

His4ever #fundie boards.straightdope.com

Thanks for the link to the new chick tract. I liked it. I'm getting low, will probably order it next time I send in an order. Don't think you guys are getting the real message here. You prefer to make fun and analyze to death but the plain truth is that anyone not knowing Christ as Savior will go to the lake of fire. It's in the Word, for those who happen to believe what God says about it. That's all I have to say.

Adaher #fundie boards.straightdope.com

So, it goes back to minimizing, denial, victim blaming, scapegoating and whitewashing. So, so gross. With much more to be said about the apologists than is getting mention.

That's the problem with your analysis though. There hasn't been any victim blaming. THe Duggars took the accusations seriously rather than resorting to denial, which is unfortunately what most families do in that situation.

It's certainly fair to say the Duggars should have done something else, but until someone can show me a real world example of a family handling it better than the Duggars did, I'm not inclined to judge them harshly. The vast bulk of situations like these are allowed to go on forever with no intervention from the family. At best, the problem is usually ignored, at worst the victim is blamed or called a liar.


I also see a lot of criticism of the Duggars' "fundie cult", but it seems to me that their cultish moral values are what led to them believing the accusers rather than trying to deny or blame the victim. When you believe that we're all sinners, ruled by desires of the flesh, it's easy to believe that your son can do horrible things. Whereas non-religious families often seem to be under the impression that their kids can do no wrong.


And again, it sounds to me like that was done. Most sexual abuse cases I've seen it's ongoing for as long as the victim lives with the perp and the family is forever broken because of it. The Duggars seem like a happy brood, relatively unaffected by what was a very short-lived problem.

Again, show me a family that did a better job. Most families do a lot worse

Sahirrnee #fundie boards.straightdope.com

[ on being friends with an active murderer. ]

Would not turn him in, would not question him, would not even let him know I know the sob is dead. Like Sgt Shultz, 'I know nothing'.

I don't know that he did it and I'm not about to ruin a friendship over suspicion, nor am I going to let someone know I think they might be guilty. If they are innocent I'm hurting their feelings, if they're guilty I'd rather they didn't think they have to get rid of me too.


Even if for some reason I was questioned I don't know anything, so there is nothing to tell.

However I will not perjure myself for anybody and once a 'friend' asked me to lie to the police for him and lie to the court for him. Nope! It was over a DWI though, not a murder.

FWIW I was kind of in this situation and I had my suspicions and I kept my mouth shut. Other peo

Adaher #fundie boards.straightdope.com

[On the Duggars]

Most families don't continue to have children after being unable to protect their existing kids from sexual abuse.

Wrong. Most families take no action at all to protect their kids from sexual abuse by family members. Strangers they'll get all mama and papa bear on, but when it's within the family the reaction is almost always denial or lame attempts to keep them separated. "Don't ever leave the kids alone with Uncle Jim! You know how he is!"

Most families don't go on national television and present themselves as perfect families with this kind of shit in their closet.

Most families don't go on national TV, but most families who are well regarded in their community have secrets.


Most families don't run around on television telling grown women they shouldn't be allowed access to birth control or that gays stink.

Which has nothing to do with sexual abuse. Liberal families have sexual abuse problems too.

And for the eleventeenth time, WE HAVE NO IDEA IF THE ABUSE WAS SHORT LIVED. We don't know shit about the abuse. We don't know when it stopped or if it is still going on. The Duggars are bunch of badly educated dumb shits with too many kids and tiny little brains. Why the hell should we believe a word they say?

It's certainly possible that Josh Duggar is a very sick man who will always be a sexual offender. And when there's evidence that this is the case, I'll believe it.

They don't seem like a happy brood. They seem like a group of really dumb people with an idiotic belief system that encourages sexism, overpopulation, homophobia and deliberate ignorance. Jim Bob Duggar makes disgusting excuses for sexual abuse. Michelle Duggar talks like a five year old and refuses to educate her own kids properly. Her daughters sound like the kind of morons who want to join ISIS or the Westboro Baptist Church. Her eldest son is a pedophile and a sanctimonious asshole with a GED and an over inflated sense of importance.

It is deeply disturbing to see how many foolish people still blindly support them.

Sounds like part of your issue is their belief system. Fine, so show me a more liberal, secular family that handled sexual abuse within their family in a more productive way

Projecting My Psychopathy Award

Chopper9760 #fundie boards.straightdope.com

These questions come up in my mind when I've spent all day watching a Law & Order marathon.

On this show, people perjure themselves all the time to protect mothers, fathers, siblings, children (rarely spouses), and when at the very end of the episode, the detectives drag the truth out of them (namely, that they knew all along that mom, dad, sis, son was, in fact the murderer), they say, as if it's obvious and self-explanatory, "BUT SHE'S MY MOTHER," or fill in the other first-degree relative.

So I'm asking: would you perjure yourself in court to protect your parent, sibling, or child, knowing they were guilty?

Separate question: would you take the rap (jail) for your guilty parent, sibling, or child? (I'm presuming you wouldn't take the death penalty.)


I'd perjure myself for my folks but I don't think I'd take a murder rap nor would they let me.

might not agree with my dad for killing my neighbor with a snow shovel but if I could convince myself that he wasn't going to kill ALL my neighbors w/ snow shovels, I'd probably help him get away with it.

I think David Kaczynski was a hero but I'd have to be convinced my folks were a danger to society before I held up my social responsibility to rat on them. I'm selfish that way.

As for sex crimes, well, I figure my family's experience with sex crimes has informed my opinion of killing people.

Serious? Even if he did it without any real justification?What you think there's some special legal or moral privilege that attaches to having been a victim of sex crimes, that doesn't count for murder? I don't. And I've been a victim.

Bear in mind that I haven't advocated my actions from a legal, moral, or even a logical standpoint. Obviously everyone should be held to the same standard of justice.

That being said, are you really surprised that I value my loved ones more than the social contract? I picked an extreme example as a way of finding my own personal limit. I would imagine I'd be quite conflicted if I knew Mom or Dad killed someone with no provocation. However, if I saw an opportunity to get them out of trouble I would take it.

I haven't murdered the sex offenders in my own family but I'm not going to be upset if someone else does. I only raised the sex crimes issue to point out a personal hard limit - I can wrap my mind around helping my folks get away with murder but I could never defend them if they committed a sex crime.


So you're saying you're advocating actions you, yourself, think are immoral and illogical?
So you've never made a choice that you knew was wrong? I have a hard time believing you've seriously considered the hypothetical.

I'm saying that I would, in certain circumstances, chuck my morals and rationality for 2 people in a world of, what, 6,000,000,000? That doesn't make me an asshole, that makes me a normal member of society.

You nailed it earlier when you mentioned the justice system. LEO's aren't supposed to investigate family, your relations won't end up in the jury box and our spouses are often exempt from testifying. We've built our society with an acknowledgement of the importance of familial relationships.

MrDibble, I think you have unrealistic expectations of yourself and others. Further, I think slightly irrational balls-to-the-wall loyalty for a small number of people is just as important as trying to be a good global citizen.


View Post

Really, it boils down to a simple question - how can anyone justify helping someone get away with murder? "Because they're family" doesn't quite have enough of an explanatory power to me. Why should it?

Justify is perhaps a poor word choice as we've posited the example of someone we know is guilty. The choice to commit perjury is inherently unjustified no matter what crime we're talking about, that's why it's perjury.

Why would I (in some circumstances) perjure myself so a loved one could escape a murder charge they were guilty of? Because I'd rather have my loved one free and not in prison. Because I value my family over society.

I'm not going to break that way every time but I can imagine doing it.

js_africanus #fundie boards.straightdope.com

[on the subject on spiking someone's drink with a love potion]
>>No, sorry, it's still a violation in my opinion.


And you opinion is based on what, exactly? It is a magic potion where by definition the target's free will is altered such that the target falls madly for the user.

Quote:
>>If I steal your car and, in the process make you forget you ever had a car, I've still got a car and you don't.

That may be the case; however, the example is in no way analogous to the question at hand. If I have a potion that makes you want to give your car to me, then you obtain what you desire and I obtain what I desire. The potion changes your preferences. A love potion is not a form of supernatural coercion; a love potion is a way to magically re-organize the universe so that the object of your desire loves you madly & truly.

The seducer does not leave a broken person behind, but one who is better off for the seduction, and glad that it happened.

The target of the love potion is going through life with all the failed relationships and lost loves that cause the rest of us so much pain. The love potion takes that away and gives the target True Love in a manner the rest of us can only hope for, but will never obtain. If you fall in love with a person, does it matter whether it was her personality, her humor, or her superfine ass? Would it matter if it was a potion? No! Because to say that it did matter, you would be violating the condition of the hypothetical.

I say yes, I'd use it;

Nomadic_One #fundie boards.straightdope.com

To an evolutionist, the idea that an almighty God created everything is pure foolishness. And don’t take kindly to those who don’t fall for their imagination. Just look at evolution’s prevalence in places where people claim to be learned.

YogSothoth #fundie boards.straightdope.com

would you report a pedophile coworker ?
This comment ensued
Say you have a co-worker who proudly spills out his inclination to have sex with babies but won't because its illegal.
How do you respond ?
I would report him and do everything I can to ensure he no longer works with me.

I wouldn't report because I'd think of it as a sick joke first. Who goes around telling other people that? Its much more likely he's an idiot rather than a pedo.

Now if I was convinced he was serious, then it be equally likely that I'd be convinced he was serious about not touching any kids, so either way I'm fine with just ignoring him.

Glad to know the kiddies can rely on you.

Well I like to live dangerously

I eat rare meat, I go outside without a sweater, and play video games or read while driving the car.

What real assurance do I have that its just an offhand comment and not a serious declaration of intent? None. Assuming I believe him, why think he'll break the law if I thought he was serious about being a pedophile? Take the emotion out of the argument, and you'd have just a co-worker who has an odd taste in jokes.

Logically speaking, it doesn't matter whether he works with kids or the elderly, because the above statement works either way. So I don't think its the right thing to report him at all because you'd either be sure he's joking, or be sure he won't break the law. Only someone steeped in bias would callously twist his words into the no-win scenario you've driven him in to. By your actions, why shouldn't he go and rape the next baby he sees? Either way, he'll get the cops on him, probably lose his job, and be ostracized. Might as well indulge, right?

And before you ask, yes, I would totally leave him alone with any kid, even mine. It would be hypocritical for me to display distrust after defending him, and I'd be pretty sure of correctness to the point where I don't think he's a threat. Sometimes you just gotta take chances Dio

Seethruart #fundie boards.straightdope.com

I believe you are the one making false claims (should I be suprised?). Where have I said anything about imaginary little people? Nowhere have I mentioned that. I suppose you imagined it, like you imagine the Apollo missions landed on the moon I claim the moon landings were faked, and I am backing that up with solid photographic evidence. I have made no false claims. The only false claims are made by NASA and the US Government. As far as your bogus scientific theories go....you can stuff them.