User Tag List

First 101819202122 Last

Results 191 to 200 of 278

  1. #191
    Protocol Droid Athenian200's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    8,828

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edgar View Post
    FYI, an adult woman having sex with an underaged male is also considered statutory rape.
    Why?

    I've never heard of that before. Doesn't make much sense to worry about it...

  2. #192
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Athenian200 View Post
    Oh.

    Well, then I suppose they DO need to do something, although I still very much think they should have found a way to do it 30 years ago. It's ridiculous that they took 30 years to figure out how to get him detained. Seriously, they obviously weren't even trying very hard until recently.
    He was in a foreign country. That foreign country has sovereignty over the people within it. If the United States sent people to France to forcibly extradite him back to the US, that would be an act of war, as they would be violating France's sovereignty.

    They were trying as hard as allowed under international treaties.

    I do think it's sketchy to just say "no one should be above the law." I can easily think of situations where people SHOULD be above the law.
    Name one. When is a person more important, more worthy than anyone else that they can violate others' rights with impunity? This is a deeply offensive concept to me.

    But this isn't one of them. I'm still rather disturbed by this whole creepy "Ooh! Consequences are important! The law should apply to everyone in exactly the same way!" mentality. It seems short-sighted to reify justice and consequences the way people tend to. It's like they deliberately ignore the fact that many things about reality and life are inherently unjust, and continue to live and decide things as if they were.
    No one said that the law isn't a work in progress. Why aren't consequences important? Why shouldn't people have equal protection under the law? What is the agreement that binds humans together in societies?

    Isn't there some way they could have pursued this more quietly rather than having it all out in the open, though?
    Of course not; he's an internationally famous movie director. That alone means any action taken against him is going to be absurdly high-profile.

  3. #193
    Nerd King Usurper Edgar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    4,209

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Athenian200 View Post
    Why?

    I've never heard of that before. Doesn't make much sense to worry about it...
    Are you... are you serious?
    Listen to me, baby, you got to understand, you're old enough to learn the makings of a man.

  4. #194
    Protocol Droid Athenian200's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    8,828

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    He was in a foreign country. That foreign country has sovereignty over the people within it. If the United States sent people to France to forcibly extradite him back to the US, that would be an act of war, as they would be violating France's sovereignty.

    They were trying as hard as allowed under international treaties.
    Why was he given a passport in the first place? Shouldn't someone be answering for that one?


    Name one. When is a person more important, more worthy than anyone else that they can violate others' rights with impunity? This is a deeply offensive concept to me.
    You've probably misunderstood it if you're looking at it like that, but I think you'll know it when you see it.


    No one said that the law isn't a work in progress. Why aren't consequences important? Why shouldn't people have equal protection under the law? What is the agreement that binds humans together in societies?
    Those are all very good questions.

    Consequences are sometimes important, but at other times they're not. I would say they ARE important in this case, now that marmalade added those details in. Consequences could be less important in cases where, say, a homeless, jobless person with no money steals a loaf of bread. I'd be uncomfortable with someone just saying "Ooh! Theft! Consequences needed!"

    Equal protection... well, the fact of the matter is, some kinds of people are harmed more by a particular crime than another person would be. One person might genuinely be hurting from it, and the other person might be abusing the law to get something out of a situation that didn't actually hurt them, even though it's the same law. People can often see this thing a mile away, and yet law and justice on their own don't offer any protection against it.

    The agreement, I suppose, is ultimately connection to resources. We live within societies and provide service to said society in exchange for access to the resources that they provide. Right?
    Of course not; he's an internationally famous movie director. That alone means any action taken against him is going to be absurdly high-profile.
    Why isn't there a way to keep it from being high-profile? You know, to keep people from talking about it?

  5. #195
    Emerging Tallulah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    6,028

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by reason View Post
    [Copied post from similar thread on INTPCentral]

    I didn't know anything about Roman Polankski until today -- the name was familiar but I couldn't have told you who he was.

    After reading a few articles from around the web, I think this one by Kate Harding at Salon.com captures my feelings well. Here is the first paragraph:

    Roman Polanski raped a child. Let's just start right there, because that's the detail that tends to get neglected when we start discussing whether it was fair for the bail-jumping director to be arrested at age 76, after 32 years in "exile" (which in this case means owning multiple homes in Europe, continuing to work as a director, marrying and fathering two children, even winning an Oscar, but never -- poor baby -- being able to return to the U.S.). Let's keep in mind that Roman Polanski gave a 13-year-old girl a Quaalude and champagne, then raped her, before we start discussing whether the victim looked older than her 13 years, or that she now says she'd rather not see him prosecuted because she can't stand the media attention. Before we discuss how awesome his movies are or what the now-deceased judge did wrong at his trial, let's take a moment to recall that according to the victim's grand jury testimony, Roman Polanski instructed her to get into a jacuzzi naked, refused to take her home when she begged to go, began kissing her even though she said no and asked him to stop; performed cunnilingus on her as she said no and asked him to stop; put his penis in her vagina as she said no and asked him to stop; asked if he could penetrate her anally, to which she replied, "No," then went ahead and did it anyway, until he had an orgasm.
    Just read that article--I agree, that's the sanest thing I've read so far. She was a child, he raped her, and he fled the country. I think people just enjoy thinking of Americans as puritanical witch-hunters, and then it goes so far that people who DO deserve to be punished end up heroes for going up against horrible, terrible America.
    Something Witty

  6. #196

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tallulah View Post
    . I think people just enjoy thinking of Americans as puritanical witch-hunters, and then it goes so far that people who DO deserve to be punished end up heroes for going up against horrible, terrible America.
    I can't believe nobody brought this up yet. True.
    Everybody have fun tonight. Everybody Wang Chung tonight.

    Johari
    /Nohari

  7. #197
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    [quote=Athenian200;852732]Why was he given a passport in the first place? Shouldn't someone be answering for that one?[/quote

    He's a citizen of France; he was born there. He was also out on bail, and not considered a flight risk. What does the passport have to do with anything?

    You've probably misunderstood it if you're looking at it like that, but I think you'll know it when you see it.
    No, I won't. My opinions and beliefs are different than yours. Do you see what the problem is there?

    Those are all very good questions.

    Consequences are sometimes important, but at other times they're not. I would say they ARE important in this case, now that marmalade added those details in. Consequences could be less important in cases where, say, a homeless, jobless person with no money steals a loaf of bread. I'd be uncomfortable with someone just saying "Ooh! Theft! Consequences needed!"
    So people of limited economic means have a fiat to steal, provided he can prove the need? Especially when there already exist public assistance programs that legitimately provide food for free?

    I think you've mistaken the law for something imposed upon us. It's not. It's the contract we all agree to by living in this society. When you breach a contract, damages must be paid to compensate for the reliance society has upon the individual to uphold the law and maintain social cohesion. When you don't do that, society has the right to demand its repayment. We do that either through fines or incarceration. However, society also has the ability to alter the terms of the contract - that's called plea bargaining. That also goes along with the de minimis concept I explained earlier - a judge can say that stealing a meager amount of food to provide for a family is so trifling as to not warrant the condemnation of conviction. But we all have to agree that stealing is violating our social contract.

    Equal protection... well, the fact of the matter is, some kinds of people are harmed more by a particular crime than another person would be. One person might genuinely be hurting from it, and the other person might be abusing the law to get something out of a situation that didn't actually hurt them, even though it's the same law. People can often see this thing a mile away, and yet law and justice on their own don't offer any protection against it.
    Example?

    The agreement, I suppose, is ultimately connection to resources. We live within societies and provide service to said society in exchange for access to the resources that they provide. Right?
    I fundamentally disagree. You can get resources by yourself, but can trust that someone else is going to do violence to you in order to get those resources as well, if nature itself doesn't kill you in the first place.

    The agreement society has made is to restrain a certain set of self-serving behaviors in order to promote the likelihood of mutual survival. That's all it is. Because society has granted these protections, we're able to maximize our individual potential, including the increased ability to acquire and maintain resources. However, when a person breaks this agreement by engaging in those self-serving behaviors, the legitimacy of this agreement is put into question. Others may see that the same self-serving behavior would better suit their short-term needs, and thus the societal structure would collapse.

    Consequently, the outcome of engaging in the self-serving behavior must be less desirable than engaging in the pro-social behavior. That's why we have legal penalties - so as to persuade others to work for mutual, rather than individual, benefit.

    Why isn't there a way to keep it from being high-profile? You know, to keep people from talking about it?
    He's a famous movie director. People are going to wonder why someone who is well-known disappeared all of a sudden, and more importantly, they'll pay money to find out. This is impossible to get around, outside of a complete police-state setup, and even then, this is international, so there would be no way to get around that, either.

  8. #198
    Nerd King Usurper Edgar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    4,209

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post

    I think you've mistaken the law for something imposed upon us. It's not. It's the contract we all agree to by living in this society.
    I guess those Jews agreed to be treated as untermensch by living in Germany in 30s and 40s, and I guess the SWAT won't descend upon my ass if I buy a bunch of land in Waco, TX and declare myself a sovereign.

    Is that right?
    Listen to me, baby, you got to understand, you're old enough to learn the makings of a man.

  9. #199
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edgar View Post
    I guess those Jews agreed to be treated as untermensch by living in Germany in 30s and 40s, and I guess the SWAT won't descend upon my ass if I buy a bunch of land in Waco, TX and declare myself a sovereign.

    Is that right?
    No one said the rules had to be just; only that there were rules. Many exercised their ability to leave the confines of that particular contract by fleeing Germany. Unfortunately, millions of others were unable to. Nazi Germany was still a nation of laws: it's just that those laws were fucking horrible. The fact that a concept can be abused doesn't invalidate or disprove a concept; rather, it illustrates the care that needs to be taken with its implementation. It would be unreasonable to make kitchen knives illegal just because it's possible to stab and kill someone with one, wouldn't it?

    Koresh didn't have the right to declare sovereignty, and the US has the right to protect its sovereignty through the use of force. Accidents happen.

  10. #200
    Nerd King Usurper Edgar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    4,209

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    No one said the rules had to be just; only that there were rules. Many exercised their ability to leave the confines of that particular contract by fleeing Germany. Unfortunately, millions of others were unable to. Nazi Germany was still a nation of laws: it's just that those laws were fucking horrible. The fact that a concept can be abused doesn't invalidate or disprove a concept; rather, it illustrates the care that needs to be taken with its implementation. It would be unreasonable to make kitchen knives illegal just because it's possible to stab and kill someone with one, wouldn't it?
    Wtf do knives have to do with anything?
    The concept that I accept all laws, current and future, of the entity that has gained control of the land I happen to live on, is very dubious.

    Koresh didn't have the right to declare sovereignty, and the US has the right to protect its sovereignty through the use of force. Accidents happen.
    What right did the US government have imposing their will over Native American land? Under your assertion, the white settlers accepted the law of the Indian tribes as soon as they rolled onto the American land, which would make white settlers criminals when they started killing buffalos and issuing "fuck yous" to indian chiefs.
    Listen to me, baby, you got to understand, you're old enough to learn the makings of a man.

Similar Threads

  1. Over- and underconcentration
    By UnitOfPopulation in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 10-21-2007, 07:58 PM
  2. ENFP, over here!
    By Hexis in forum Welcomes and Introductions
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 07-16-2007, 06:53 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO