The sunlight has traveled 93,000,000 to give me a sun tan
You standing there have stopped it in the last 3 feet
You standing there have stopped it in the last 3 feet
You be the judge - sexual assault?
- Thread starter Beer w/Straw
- Start date
- Status
I skimmed this article: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/85-002-x/2017001/article/54844-eng.htm and it may also relate to basic laws, in like, western countries.
And also that incident that Bells remarked upon in another thread about this: https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/21/us/alaska-assault-man-no-sentence/index.html In effecting the sentencing in some fashion.
There is only mandatory minimum sentencing for sexual assault if the victim is 16 or under and, for drugs, it depends on the type.
I mentioned drugs atop because I've heard in U.S. politics something like: "War on drugs" and people getting mandatory sentencing for essentially nothing.
And also that incident that Bells remarked upon in another thread about this: https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/21/us/alaska-assault-man-no-sentence/index.html In effecting the sentencing in some fashion.
There is only mandatory minimum sentencing for sexual assault if the victim is 16 or under and, for drugs, it depends on the type.
I mentioned drugs atop because I've heard in U.S. politics something like: "War on drugs" and people getting mandatory sentencing for essentially nothing.
Last edited:
Wonder if William Morris was familiar with Diogenes' wanderings.He is reputed to have ridden around Epping Forest in a toy suit of armour as a boy.
He did have a word or two to say about Diogenes
"As to the outlaws from civilization, they are those of whom I began by saying that there are or were people who rejected the arts of life on grounds that we could at least understand, if we could not sympathize with the rejecters. There have been in all ages of civilization men who have acted, or had a tendency to act, on some such principle as the following words represent: The world is full of grievous labour, the poor toiling for the rich, and ever remaining poor; with this we, at least, will have nought to do; we cannot amend it, but we will not be enriched by it, nor be any better than the worst of our fellows. Well, this is what may be called the monk's way of rejecting the arts, whether he be Christian monk, or Buddhist ascetic, or ancient philosopher. I believe he is wrong, but I cannot call him enemy. Sometimes I can't help thinking, Who knows but what the whole world may come to that for a little? the field of art may have to lie fallow a while that the weeds may be known for what they are, and be burnt in the end. I say that I have at least respect for the dwellers in the tub of Diogenes; indeed I don't look upon it as so bad a house after all. With a plane-tree and a clear brook near it, and some chance of daily bread and onions, it will do well enough. I have seen worse houses to let for seven hundred pounds a year. But, mind you, it must be the real thing. The tub of Diogenes lined with padded drab velvet, lighted by gas, polished and cleaned by vicarious labour, and expecting every morning due visits from the milkman, the baker, the butcher, and the fishmonger, that is a cynical dwelling which I cannot praise. If we are to be excused for rejecting the arts, it must be not because we are contented to be less than men, but because we long to be more than men"
https://www.marxists.org/archive/morris/works/1882/life1.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Morris
Personally ,during the hippy era, I was accosted by a pair of policemen in a squad car having been reported as a possible escapee from the local mental asylum on account of my then fashionable attire
That link gives me an error:
Uh-oh!
It could be you, or it could be us, but there's no page here.
https://edition.cnn.com/2016/03/23/...chard-nixon-drug-war-blacks-hippie/index.html
must have been a bad cut and paste
must have been a bad cut and paste
Yes, that's what it was: I cut off its tail.
And they've been cashing in ever since, through big budgets for militarized police forces and FBI, private prisons and reform schools, vast legal (if unconstitutional) license for surveillance and search-and-seizure, gun sales and L&O votes from paranoia.
How do you "promote" an emotion? An act that terrorizes somebody is a crime but how do you deal with a non-act? If I tell you you should be afraid of climate change, that might very well provoke fear in you but is it a crime?
I wasn't really looking to answer. Tired and maybe just wrong word choice. I didn't even read all of this: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-human-pheromones-real/ But, guessing you could "promote" an emotional response by proximity without even knowing
I don't believe you are unfamiliar with the basic idea of fearmongering.
You're kinda making my point. Fearmongering is not a crime.
I think you need to get one.
Ever?
I mean, is this one of those things that once it becomes criminal, you just call it something else?
That much, at least, would make sense, but neither do I feel like writing your arguments for you.
"How do you 'promote' an emotion?" What a ridiculous question.
Well, yes. Killing somebody is only a crime if you call it murder. Fearmongering is only a crime if there actually IS some crime involved. Because you can't just magically insert specific emotions into people.
Now you're invoking magic?
Maybe not yet.
Wonder what I did to erase the whole thing.
The legal situation is the same as with killing. It's only a crime if done by a private individual for personal reasons.
Killing, can be called lots of things besides murder; can be generally or situationally classified forbidden, discouraged, permitted or mandatory by legislation.
Similarly, the promoting of fear of some particular threat is not a crime if done by a government in power, or its agents.
Fearmongering, oth, means instilling dread, panic or terror in the population when there is no actual threat.
The classic example is yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater. OK if there is fire; crime, if there isn't.
But anti-terrorist propaganda by a government in power is patriotic, whether there is an actual threat of terrorist attack or not.
Generally, it is permissible for a private citizen to warn one or more of his fellow citizens of an actual or potential threat to their physical, emotional or financial health.
The legal situation is the same as with killing. It's only a crime if done by a private individual for personal reasons.
Killing, can be called lots of things besides murder; can be generally or situationally classified forbidden, discouraged, permitted or mandatory by legislation.
Similarly, the promoting of fear of some particular threat is not a crime if done by a government in power, or its agents.
Fearmongering, oth, means instilling dread, panic or terror in the population when there is no actual threat.
The classic example is yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater. OK if there is fire; crime, if there isn't.
But anti-terrorist propaganda by a government in power is patriotic, whether there is an actual threat of terrorist attack or not.
Not yet, afaik.
Generally, it is permissible for a private citizen to warn one or more of his fellow citizens of an actual or potential threat to their physical, emotional or financial health.
Last edited:
No, I'm mocking you, because you seem to think you can insert specific emotions into people.
And now you're down to make-believe?
so your claiming propaganda is not a thing? you know the problem with acting like your stupid is people will think your are actually stupid? Do you want everyone to think your a moron cause that what this comes across as.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fearmongering
- Status