|
Post by Passerby on Aug 6, 2011 12:53:39 GMT -5
I did not know prostitution was legal in Canada. It's... complicated. And more than a little stupid. While having sex for money is technically legal, you cannot communicate that you are offering to do so or looking for someone who is. Loose euphemisms such as 'escort' services can occasionally squeak on by so long as nobody flat out states what the 'service' actually is. Living off the avails of prostitution is also illegal so I'm really not sure what the hell loopholes people have to work through.
|
|
|
Post by Passerby on Aug 6, 2011 8:28:10 GMT -5
Are you arguing criminal culpability, severity of charge, or the merits of the prison system itself?
|
|
|
Post by Passerby on Aug 6, 2011 6:42:35 GMT -5
Gotta agree with malicious_bloke. Point to consider, she sought him out for the purpose of continuing a sexual relationship. She was no longer in a position where he had any sort of power or authority over her to coerce her into the situation and she knew full well what she was doing. Whether that desire is born of some mild-altering trauma or not is a matter for due consideration by the courts in how to proceed for her sentencing, (perhaps counselling is in order, or there's the possibility that she was always the instigator,] but ultimately the decision was hers.
|
|
|
Post by Passerby on Aug 6, 2011 6:35:08 GMT -5
First off, the girls in these 'marriages' are not given a choice in the matter, the sadistic bullshit factor and abuse charges would still apply if they were thirty. Secondly Jeffs, as leader of the polygamist commune, is in a position of trust and arranges these matchups. He assigns husbands their pre-pubescant wives like property and picks his own harem right out of the cradle. Third, in early childhood all adults are considered to be in a position of trust with minors. No matter what the situation children are expected to listen to and learn from us, and trust that the nearest adult knows better whenever something goes awry.
To address your 'concerns' lighthorseman: Collectively it is our responsibility to prepare children for adulthood. In their formative years every child's interaction with an adult, however fleeting, shapes in part how they view and deal with the world. They are expected to trust and learn from us whether or not we have authority over them in an official capacity. By the time they reach the age of majority if they are not competent to live as adults it is a failure on all our parts that it never took. As we no longer have official coming of age rituals that weed out who is actually ready to knuckle down and handle being an adult, (mostly because they're life-threatening, a little barbaric, and potentially able to permanently break a child that does not pass... but really so is most of adult life,) we use age approximated by the end of the average educational period as the measure of the maturation of mental faculties. Unless you're suggesting that we bring back coming of age traditions in all of their former severity to prove the willpower, mettle, and ability of children to sort their shit in adverse conditions with the possibility of failure preventing the legal attainment of status as an adult then all we can do is assume that their education, both academic and social, counted for something.
|
|
|
Post by Passerby on Aug 5, 2011 17:11:06 GMT -5
I tend not to think of 'wiggers' as white boys who 'act black' but as white boys who think blaxploitation flicks and music videos are documentaries rather than over-the-top representations purely for entertainment and use them as a how-to guide for success in life and survival on the streets. Emulating a god-awful stereotype of black men is almost incidental.
It's like mistaking any other piece of media for fact. It's why you see tourists trying to "act local and blend in" only to be a public spectacle.
The biggest problem with this is that these morons actually think they're being culturally sensitive as opposed to parroting media. Dave Chapelle does his shtick for laughs, 50 Cent makes his image for sales, these idiots are being serious. Bigotry, like any other insult, resides with intent. If you're passing a ridiculous perception off as fact when evidence to the contrary is readily available you're a bigot, intentional or no. If you're making a parody of a perception and let people know it, then you're having a risque laugh. If you make those jokes non-stop with poor timing and have no sense of when it pisses people off then you're a douchebag.
|
|
|
Post by Passerby on Aug 5, 2011 16:46:50 GMT -5
Passerby, they sued for the right to lie. And won. It's over. There's no accountability to be had. There was a serious legal challenge and they beat it? I'm dying a little on the inside, now. Thanks for that.
|
|
|
Post by Passerby on Aug 5, 2011 16:37:21 GMT -5
...Oh, is it my turn to be the party pooper? Ok. Yay, rape is good when it's happening to someone I don't like, particualrly if they raped someone because rape is bad and... wait what. Well I suppose I deserve that. Yes I know rape is terrible and wouldn't wish it even on that asshole's anus. It probably sounded like I was cheering it on but I'm not, I'm having a very dark joke at his expense concerning how he's going to be in exactly the situation he was forcing on underaged girls. Prison rape is horrible and I actually hope it doesn't happen, but I also hope he develops a sudden and clear understanding of the irony of it all as he lays awake in his bunk fearing the next morning and praying to his newly revised God for forgiveness.
|
|
|
Post by Passerby on Aug 5, 2011 2:01:19 GMT -5
Well, let's see how Warren Jeffs likes Bubba's religous freedom to claim multiple 'bitches' as his property and violently consumate his relationship with all of them... whether they like it or not.
|
|
|
Post by Passerby on Aug 5, 2011 1:49:49 GMT -5
Considering just how badly the Chinese wish they could take back those years where they figured that every stomach came with pair of hands attatched to help build their society the Republicans might take a damned hint.
I can't help but think of John Calhoun's experiments... and we're the rats.
|
|
|
Post by Passerby on Aug 5, 2011 1:40:08 GMT -5
Is it even legal for Fox News to call itself a 'News' network anymore? There's Truth In Advertising laws to consider and it doesn't qualify for satirical considerations. Satire like The Onion is funny, Fox News tries to scare people into being assholes and generally makes me want to punch things.
|
|
|
Post by Passerby on Aug 5, 2011 1:26:41 GMT -5
Am I a horrible person for actually wanting to see all the kids emulate the retarded stereotypes they think are true about whites/blacks/Asians/Mexicans/whatever for the sheer comedic value of it?
A "Holy shit, we all look stupid. People actually believe this about me? Wait, what if I'm being just as offensive?" epiphany would be greatly appreciated as well.
|
|
|
Post by Passerby on Jul 31, 2011 15:04:28 GMT -5
If cybersex is the main focus of this bit of overcompensation it should already be covered by existing laws and ethical boundries preventing sexual liasons with those in a position of trust. From my point of view cybersex, talking dirty, and exchanging pornographic images for sexual gratification are sexual acts. If those aren't already classified as such in existing law, then scribbling a few notes in the margins would fix the problem better than this unenforcable farce.
|
|
|
Post by Passerby on Jul 27, 2011 16:35:40 GMT -5
This is Bachmann we're talking about here. She doesn't know how a toaster works, let alone a financial agency. Stupid bitch even once encouraged people to give false information to the census bureau because 'they were out to get your personal information' to the chagrin of her own party. (This actually resulted in a census taker being murdered.) All she knows about any given state program is her party line: They're bad, they give away money, they literally rob from the poor and give to the even poorer with criminal records. There's a fair chance she has no idea what Fannie May or Freddie Mac actually do. I wouldn't be terribly surprised if she came out to mistakenly axe whatever body governs her own pension and benefits.
|
|
|
Post by Passerby on Jul 27, 2011 0:09:52 GMT -5
Thanks, Smurfette Principle. I think we needed this. Nothing should ruin the moment for the happily married couples in those photos. That bliss must endure.
|
|
|
Post by Passerby on Jul 26, 2011 23:45:22 GMT -5
So basically it's allowing a private buy-in for public schools. Making it legal for the government to accept money from the proceeds of a crime, how does this not surprise me? That is a "special" interpretation. This is the same logic that says it should be illegal to pay the neighborhood stoner to mow your lawn. You might not want said stoner to mow it, but that is a different question than whether you can offer compensation to said individual for a task. If you don't like "stoner" then change it to something like somebody with unpaid parking tickets or prostitute or "sodomite" pre-Lawrence v. Texas. Also, college=/government. The source material specifically states it allows public (state funded) schools to take money from private scholarships to cover the expenses. Would amending it specify a government organization/program be more accurate? A legal citizen would most likely apply for a loan from another government program or office to be paid back with interest. Since an illegal immigrant can't get such a loan legally from either the government or domestic lenders they are either A) Pulling in money from overseas, which the school has no problem taking despite it's illegality. Or B) Independantly wealthy, and we all know the laws work differently for such people. I was heavily implying option A. Unless I'm mistaken, for someone to legally recieve a foreign scholarship they have to be a legal resident. If someone who is not a legal resident is getting money from such a fund they are either defrauding their benefactor by telling them they have a student visa or the lender is knowingly funneling money to an illegal alien. Both are crimes. I am not certain that the stoner lawn mower comparison is valid as I am not an accessory to his personal crimes and paying him to work is not a crime in itself unless I happen to be paying him in pot which he smokes right in front of me before leaving for the day. Then the anology might be closer. Simply taking the money and giving the student the finger was probably standard procedure before the Dream Act, but then I imagine somebody from group B complained that they 'bought' that education and their diploma fair and square. Personally I do believe if you go through the education and pass on your own merit then you've earned that no matter how you got into the system.
|
|