[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
What do you expect in Britain. A country full of pussies who take it in the ass from their government more than this retarded guy.[/quote]
I loled.
But it’s true. 
[quote]roybot wrote:
[quote]BobParr wrote:
I’m not familiar enough with the British court system, but doesn’t the House of Lords serve a similar role as the U.S. Supreme Court? There’s got to be some mechanism to review the constitutionality of crazy new legislation like this.
Who gets to decide the IQ cut-off point of being smart enough to be allowed to have sex? How is that IQ tested? And how do they verify if someone barred from sex violates the ruling? Are privacy rights automatically suspended for anyone the government decides is mentally challenged? Are these British MPs aware that in the old Soviet Union, the labels of “insane” or “retarded” were freely applied to political dissidents? Are they willing to go there in Britain?
I can’t believe the British public is going along with something so repressive, crazy, and right out of Orwell’s 1984. I’m surprised they’re not rioting in the streets like Egypt.[/quote]
The reason why there isn’t a public backlash is that they are doing everything they can to make the guy out to be a pedo, so taking away his rights is seen as being in the public interest. They will have the backing of ‘responsible citizens’ because they are being led to believe that there is a kiddie fiddler in their midst.
Classic political misdirection, with the added bonus that voters will thank them when election time rolls around for effectively castrating the guy thru legislation. If there was any truth to the accusations, they would’ve jumped on that way before they took this route.
[/quote]
The reason why there isn’t a public backlash is much simpler; no-one cares enough.
Everyone here has a pretty comfortable life - not perfect, which is why we’ll bitch and moan - but it’s good enough for most people to not rock the boat.
Councils are filled with interfering, medling, jobsworth, pen-pushing tossers getting paid too much. Meanwhile libraries, pools and public parks are being closed down to save money… And hardly anyone will do anything about it.
[quote]PonceDeLeon wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Sodomy is not a basic human function.[/quote]
And neither is oral sex (does not lead to procreation), but I doubt you have as much issue with that as you do with sodomy.
[/quote]
You would be wrong.
[quote]
If your argument is rooted in religious values (sounds like it), then it is automatically void with respect to the legality of the matter. That is not an insult to your religion, either.[/quote]
No, my argument is rooted in Natural Law.
[quote]RSGZ wrote:
Isn’t this infringement of human rights?
How the hell do you enforce it? Does he got to jail if he gets caught with his pants down?
Would it be illegal for him to be raped in prison?
This is ridiculous on so many levels![/quote]
I wouldn’t say it is an infringement on human rights, but it is definitely ridiculous case, nonetheless. Britain’s actions or at least reasons are beyond absurd. Unless I read this wrong, they are putting a very strange and unethical precedent before conjugal acts. A precedent that should not be placed, ever.
This is a little different than a precedent like you have to have be married to have sex, or it has to be a man and woman for it to be a legal conjugal act. It’s a precedent on intelligence, so even if he were to marry, marry a woman legally by the state, he would still not be allowed to have conjugal acts with his wife because of his intelligence, this has eugenics all over it.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]FattyFat wrote:
[quote]PonceDeLeon wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Sodomy is not a basic human function.[/quote]
And neither is oral sex (does not lead to procreation), but I doubt you have as much issue with that as you do with sodomy.
If your argument is rooted in religious values (sounds like it), then it is automatically void with respect to the legality of the matter. That is not an insult to your religion, either.[/quote]
+1.
[/quote]
Thats just nonsense, people form their beliefs on the basis of the most outrageous bullshit and somehow religious bullshit cannot be among this drivel?
There is a huge difference between coming from a religious background and perspective and trying to establish a state religion.
[/quote]
Thanks, orion.
[quote]Jab1 wrote:
[quote]roybot wrote:
[quote]BobParr wrote:
I’m not familiar enough with the British court system, but doesn’t the House of Lords serve a similar role as the U.S. Supreme Court? There’s got to be some mechanism to review the constitutionality of crazy new legislation like this.
Who gets to decide the IQ cut-off point of being smart enough to be allowed to have sex? How is that IQ tested? And how do they verify if someone barred from sex violates the ruling? Are privacy rights automatically suspended for anyone the government decides is mentally challenged? Are these British MPs aware that in the old Soviet Union, the labels of “insane” or “retarded” were freely applied to political dissidents? Are they willing to go there in Britain?
I can’t believe the British public is going along with something so repressive, crazy, and right out of Orwell’s 1984. I’m surprised they’re not rioting in the streets like Egypt.[/quote]
The reason why there isn’t a public backlash is that they are doing everything they can to make the guy out to be a pedo, so taking away his rights is seen as being in the public interest. They will have the backing of ‘responsible citizens’ because they are being led to believe that there is a kiddie fiddler in their midst.
Classic political misdirection, with the added bonus that voters will thank them when election time rolls around for effectively castrating the guy thru legislation. If there was any truth to the accusations, they would’ve jumped on that way before they took this route.
[/quote]
The reason why there isn’t a public backlash is much simpler; no-one cares enough.
Everyone here has a pretty comfortable life - not perfect, which is why we’ll bitch and moan - but it’s good enough for most people to not rock the boat.
Councils are filled with interfering, medling, jobsworth, pen-pushing tossers getting paid too much. Meanwhile libraries, pools and public parks are being closed down to save money… And hardly anyone will do anything about it.[/quote]
Nobody will act because most people like to live their lives in bubbles, and they don’t want those bubbles burst. I agree that people can be apathetic, but the article is clearly geared towards generating hysteria by demonizing this guy and his fuck buddy. Bear with me:
Neither the judge or anyone else has any dirt on them, otherwise they’d have used it to lock both men up. They can’t do that, so their only recourse is kick up a furore by implying the duo may at some point sexually assault somebody’s child. Hey presto! they’ve created a public outcry out of thin air, which is enough to justify their treatment of Alan and his companion (and they won’t retaliate because they are of below average intelligence).
The best part is that the people are still as indifferent as they always were: if lots of people talk about it enough for it to get back to the media (who spread the story. Imagine the headlines: Concerned Parents Demand Perverted Pair be Locked Away), that’s enough for the politicians to take swift and decisive action for the ‘public good’ (the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few and all that)…and what’s more they conveniently already had the legislation in place to deal with this ‘menace’.
Letting people manipulate you into thinking you’ve taken action is not taking action. It’s only the illusion of it. But doesn’t every government want you to think you’re taking action when you’re not?
[quote]Jab1 wrote:
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
What do you expect in Britain. A country full of pussies who take it in the ass from their government more than this retarded guy.[/quote]
I loled.
But it’s true. :([/quote]
Not quite. Governments aren’t the biggest enemy to civil liberties anymore. Companies like Amazon and other big businesses keep dossiers of info on every one of us (Amazon also gather info on people you send gifts to, so they alone have a fair idea of who your nearest and dearest are). We all now pay a toll for living in society.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]RSGZ wrote:
Isn’t this infringement of human rights?
How the hell do you enforce it? Does he got to jail if he gets caught with his pants down?
Would it be illegal for him to be raped in prison?
This is ridiculous on so many levels![/quote]
I wouldn’t say it is an infringement on human rights, but it is definitely ridiculous case, nonetheless. Britain’s actions or at least reasons are beyond absurd. Unless I read this wrong, they are putting a very strange and unethical precedent before conjugal acts. A precedent that should not be placed, ever.
This is a little different than a precedent like you have to have be married to have sex, or it has to be a man and woman for it to be a legal conjugal act. It’s a precedent on intelligence, so even if he were to marry, marry a woman legally by the state, he would still not be allowed to have conjugal acts with his wife because of his intelligence, this has eugenics all over it.[/quote]
It’s not a precedent on intelligence; it’s a precedent on sexual orientation disguised as a precedent on intelligence. In other words, they claim he’s too dumb to control his sexual urges so they’ll do it for him because they don’t want him literally fucking around.
When odds on at least a few of the people responsible for bringing the legislation into effect probably indulge in a spot of recreational sodomy…and they are fully in charge of their faculties. Like no politician has ever been caught red assed with a rent boy or child porn.
Hetero Down’s Syndrome Couples are allowed to marry. Go figure.
[quote]roybot wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]RSGZ wrote:
Isn’t this infringement of human rights?
How the hell do you enforce it? Does he got to jail if he gets caught with his pants down?
Would it be illegal for him to be raped in prison?
This is ridiculous on so many levels![/quote]
I wouldn’t say it is an infringement on human rights, but it is definitely ridiculous case, nonetheless. Britain’s actions or at least reasons are beyond absurd. Unless I read this wrong, they are putting a very strange and unethical precedent before conjugal acts. A precedent that should not be placed, ever.
This is a little different than a precedent like you have to have be married to have sex, or it has to be a man and woman for it to be a legal conjugal act. It’s a precedent on intelligence, so even if he were to marry, marry a woman legally by the state, he would still not be allowed to have conjugal acts with his wife because of his intelligence, this has eugenics all over it.[/quote]
It’s not a precedent on intelligence; it’s a precedent on sexual orientation disguised as a precedent on intelligence. In other words, they claim he’s too dumb to control his sexual urges so they’ll do it for him because they don’t want him literally fucking around.
When odds on at least a few of the people responsible for bringing the legislation into effect probably indulge in a spot of recreational sodomy…and they are fully in charge of their faculties. Like no politician has ever been caught red assed with a rent boy or child porn.
Hetero Down’s Syndrome Couples are allowed to marry. Go figure. [/quote]
Mia culpa, must have been a hurry “precedent based on intelligence.”
Am I the only one who thinks this has nothing to do with homophobia and everything to do with the fact that some creepy as fuck dude is essentially raping a retard?
They can’t charge the guy with rape because technically the retard is consenting (and technically he isn’t retarded), but with an IQ of 48 he has no clue what’s going on.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]roybot wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]RSGZ wrote:
Isn’t this infringement of human rights?
How the hell do you enforce it? Does he got to jail if he gets caught with his pants down?
Would it be illegal for him to be raped in prison?
This is ridiculous on so many levels![/quote]
I wouldn’t say it is an infringement on human rights, but it is definitely ridiculous case, nonetheless. Britain’s actions or at least reasons are beyond absurd. Unless I read this wrong, they are putting a very strange and unethical precedent before conjugal acts. A precedent that should not be placed, ever.
This is a little different than a precedent like you have to have be married to have sex, or it has to be a man and woman for it to be a legal conjugal act. It’s a precedent on intelligence, so even if he were to marry, marry a woman legally by the state, he would still not be allowed to have conjugal acts with his wife because of his intelligence, this has eugenics all over it.[/quote]
It’s not a precedent on intelligence; it’s a precedent on sexual orientation disguised as a precedent on intelligence. In other words, they claim he’s too dumb to control his sexual urges so they’ll do it for him because they don’t want him literally fucking around.
When odds on at least a few of the people responsible for bringing the legislation into effect probably indulge in a spot of recreational sodomy…and they are fully in charge of their faculties. Like no politician has ever been caught red assed with a rent boy or child porn.
Hetero Down’s Syndrome Couples are allowed to marry. Go figure. [/quote]
Mia culpa, must have been a hurry “precedent based on intelligence.”[/quote]
Sorry, you lost me after “mea culpa”. My point is that it’s not a precedent based on intelligence, because, for example, they haven’t tried to ban straight couples with Down’s from doing the beast with two backs. Yet.
[quote]roybot wrote:
[quote]Jab1 wrote:
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
What do you expect in Britain. A country full of pussies who take it in the ass from their government more than this retarded guy.[/quote]
I loled.
But it’s true. :([/quote]
Not quite. Governments aren’t the biggest enemy to civil liberties anymore. Companies like Amazon and other big businesses keep dossiers of info on every one of us (Amazon also gather info on people you send gifts to, so they alone have a fair idea of who your nearest and dearest are). We all now pay a toll for living in society. [/quote]
Please report back when Amazon has a standing army and forces me to sign up and to divulge information.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]roybot wrote:
[quote]Jab1 wrote:
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
What do you expect in Britain. A country full of pussies who take it in the ass from their government more than this retarded guy.[/quote]
I loled.
But it’s true. :([/quote]
Not quite. Governments aren’t the biggest enemy to civil liberties anymore. Companies like Amazon and other big businesses keep dossiers of info on every one of us (Amazon also gather info on people you send gifts to, so they alone have a fair idea of who your nearest and dearest are). We all now pay a toll for living in society. [/quote]
Please report back when Amazon has a standing army and forces me to sign up and to divulge information.
[/quote]
It’s not heading in quite as literal a direction as that. Are you aware of how much info can be gathered on one person through internet purchases alone? The paper trail that each one of us creates for the privilege of living in society is meant to be benign, but it could so easily be used against us.
These days you don’t need a soldier to hold a gun to your head and force information out of you. Not when people voluntarily give up personal info that can be used against them every single day thanks to things like social networking.
Those aren’t the words of a conspiracy theorist, either. Burglars have actually cased houses by checking the facebook updates of their victims to find out when they’d be out.
But if it helps you to sleep at night that you’ll see the enemy coming, then believe away.
^^ If he agrees he’ll find out what’s going on very quickly.
[quote]roybot wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]roybot wrote:
[quote]Jab1 wrote:
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
What do you expect in Britain. A country full of pussies who take it in the ass from their government more than this retarded guy.[/quote]
I loled.
But it’s true. :([/quote]
Not quite. Governments aren’t the biggest enemy to civil liberties anymore. Companies like Amazon and other big businesses keep dossiers of info on every one of us (Amazon also gather info on people you send gifts to, so they alone have a fair idea of who your nearest and dearest are). We all now pay a toll for living in society. [/quote]
Please report back when Amazon has a standing army and forces me to sign up and to divulge information.
[/quote]
It’s not heading in quite as literal a direction as that. Are you aware of how much info can be gathered on one person through internet purchases alone? The paper trail that each one of us creates for the privilege of living in society is meant to be benign, but it could so easily be used against us.
These days you don’t need a soldier to hold a gun to your head and force information out of you. Not when people voluntarily give up personal info that can be used against them every single day thanks to things like social networking.
Those aren’t the words of a conspiracy theorist, either. Burglars have actually cased houses by checking the facebook updates of their victims to find out when they’d be out.
But if it helps you to sleep at night that you’ll see the enemy coming, then believe away.
[/quote]
If you did an internet search about me you would find next to nothing, except maybe that my computer folds proteins and analyzes SETI data for a hobby.
The point is though that there is a big difference between handing over information voluntarily and having it taken from you by someone who has quite a big coercion apparatus in place, financed by your own money.
[quote]orion wrote:
If you did an internet search about me you would find next to nothing, except maybe that my computer folds proteins and analyzes SETI data for a hobby.
The point is though that there is a big difference between handing over information voluntarily and having it taken from you by someone who has quite a big coercion apparatus in place, financed by your own money.
[/quote]
There is no point to making that distinction. People willingly give away their information and it is taken from us in ways that we don’t see, and that don’t require the use of an interrogation room. Stop taking things so literally - the end result would be the same; it’s just covertly done one person at a time instead of having an agent of the state march up to you and forcibly extract information from you.
It doesn’t matter whether I can find you on Google, it only takes one piece of the puzzle to find out everything there is on you.
Example: you and all your info could be traced through your IP history alone, depending on how much time you spend online. Even if you’ve never been on the internet, there is still information about you, thanks to car license registration systems, etc. All these things are networked and companies often end up holding information about you that they have no business accessing in the first place. That’s the dangerous part.
And if you’re one of the few people who don’t spend significant time on the web, your data can still be tracked through your friends and relatives who do. But honestly, don’t take my word for it. Read around yourself. If your not prepared to do that, you’re totally closed to the idea and this isn’t worth talking about.
[quote]roybot wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
If you did an internet search about me you would find next to nothing, except maybe that my computer folds proteins and analyzes SETI data for a hobby.
The point is though that there is a big difference between handing over information voluntarily and having it taken from you by someone who has quite a big coercion apparatus in place, financed by your own money.
[/quote]
There is no point to making that distinction. People willingly give away their information and it is taken from us in ways that we don’t see, and that don’t require the use of an interrogation room. Stop taking things so literally - the end result would be the same; it’s just covertly done one person at a time instead of having an agent of the state march up to you and forcibly extract information from you.
It doesn’t matter whether I can find you on Google, it only takes one piece of the puzzle to find out everything there is on you.
Example: you and all your info could be traced through your IP history alone, depending on how much time you spend online. Even if you’ve never been on the internet, there is still information about you, thanks to car license registration systems, etc. All these things are networked and companies often end up holding information about you that they have no business accessing in the first place. That’s the dangerous part.
And if you’re one of the few people who don’t spend significant time on the web, your data can still be tracked through your friends and relatives who do. But honestly, don’t take my word for it. Read around yourself. If your not prepared to do that, you’re totally closed to the idea and this isn’t worth talking about. [/quote]
I know all that.
What I am saying is that the only way that this development can bring down a society is if a government gets its greedy tentacles on it, because without men with guns what are you going to do with that information?
Send me unsolicited adverising, maybe identity theft, at worst a burglary or blackmail.
Annoying, definitely, maybe even downright destructive, but it hardly comes close to the shit governments routinely pulled off in the 20th century.
Do paraphrase Stalin:
How many divisions does Amazon have?
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]roybot wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
If you did an internet search about me you would find next to nothing, except maybe that my computer folds proteins and analyzes SETI data for a hobby.
The point is though that there is a big difference between handing over information voluntarily and having it taken from you by someone who has quite a big coercion apparatus in place, financed by your own money.
[/quote]
There is no point to making that distinction. People willingly give away their information and it is taken from us in ways that we don’t see, and that don’t require the use of an interrogation room. Stop taking things so literally - the end result would be the same; it’s just covertly done one person at a time instead of having an agent of the state march up to you and forcibly extract information from you.
It doesn’t matter whether I can find you on Google, it only takes one piece of the puzzle to find out everything there is on you.
Example: you and all your info could be traced through your IP history alone, depending on how much time you spend online. Even if you’ve never been on the internet, there is still information about you, thanks to car license registration systems, etc. All these things are networked and companies often end up holding information about you that they have no business accessing in the first place. That’s the dangerous part.
And if you’re one of the few people who don’t spend significant time on the web, your data can still be tracked through your friends and relatives who do. But honestly, don’t take my word for it. Read around yourself. If your not prepared to do that, you’re totally closed to the idea and this isn’t worth talking about. [/quote]
I know all that.
What I am saying is that the only way that this development can bring down a society is if a government gets its greedy tentacles on it, because without men with guns what are you going to do with that information?
Send me unsolicited adverising, maybe identity theft, at worst a burglary or blackmail.
Annoying, definitely, maybe even downright destructive, but it hardly comes close to the shit governments routinely pulled off in the 20th century.
Do paraphrase Stalin:
How many divisions does Amazon have?
[/quote]
I don’t believe you do “know all that”, otherwise you wouldn’t have made the comment about not being able to trace your info through an internet search. It’s not just about that, it’s about the information you don’t see but they do.
The problem is that the government already has its greedy tentacles on this info. I mentioned Amazon because it is a global business and trades in more than one country so the flow of information isn’t consigned to the country you live in, so stop implying that I’ve said Amazon are going to raise a private army and take over the world…they gather the information, but governments are the ones who’ll use it.
Glad you brought up identity theft. Operation Ore:
[quote]After 2003 Operation Ore came under closer scrutiny, with police forces in the UK being criticised for their handling of the operation. The most common criticism was that they failed to determine whether or not the owners of credit cards in Landslide’s database actually accessed any sites containing child porn, unlike in the US where it was determined in advance whether or not credit card subscribers had purchased child porn. Investigative journalist Duncan Campbell exposed these flaws in a series of articles in 2005 and 2007.[11][12][13]
It was a serious error that UK police received no information on the scale of the credit card fraud which had occurred within the Landslide business. Many of the charges at the Landslide affiliated sites were made using stolen credit card information, and the police arrested the real owners of the credit cards, not the actual viewers. Plus, thousands of credit card charges were made where there was no access to a site, or access to only a dummy site. When the police finally checked, they found 54,348 occurrences of stolen credit card information in the Landslide database. The British police failed to provide this information to the defendants, and in some cases implied that they had checked and found no evidence of credit card fraud when no such check had been done. Because of the nature of the charges, children were removed from homes immediately. In the two years it took the police to determine that thousands had been falsely accused, over one hundred children had been removed from their homes and denied any unsupervised time with their fathers.[14] The arrests also led to a number of suicides[4] [/quote]
^ All this thanks to the unrestricted gathering of personal data. Shit, if the owner of
a porn site can frame people for sex offences with just credit card details, just think what the government could with that info if they were so inclined.
And it’s not about bringing down society; it’s about a society having the means to suppress it’s citizens without the use of force.
[quote]overstand wrote:
Am I the only one who thinks this has nothing to do with homophobia and everything to do with the fact that some creepy as fuck dude is essentially raping a retard?
They can’t charge the guy with rape because technically the retard is consenting (and technically he isn’t retarded), but with an IQ of 48 he has no clue what’s going on. [/quote]
WTF are you talking about? You don’t think a person with an IQ of 48 isn’t mentally handicapped?
[quote]roybot wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]roybot wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]RSGZ wrote:
Isn’t this infringement of human rights?
How the hell do you enforce it? Does he got to jail if he gets caught with his pants down?
Would it be illegal for him to be raped in prison?
This is ridiculous on so many levels![/quote]
I wouldn’t say it is an infringement on human rights, but it is definitely ridiculous case, nonetheless. Britain’s actions or at least reasons are beyond absurd. Unless I read this wrong, they are putting a very strange and unethical precedent before conjugal acts. A precedent that should not be placed, ever.
This is a little different than a precedent like you have to have be married to have sex, or it has to be a man and woman for it to be a legal conjugal act. It’s a precedent on intelligence, so even if he were to marry, marry a woman legally by the state, he would still not be allowed to have conjugal acts with his wife because of his intelligence, this has eugenics all over it.[/quote]
It’s not a precedent on intelligence; it’s a precedent on sexual orientation disguised as a precedent on intelligence. In other words, they claim he’s too dumb to control his sexual urges so they’ll do it for him because they don’t want him literally fucking around.
When odds on at least a few of the people responsible for bringing the legislation into effect probably indulge in a spot of recreational sodomy…and they are fully in charge of their faculties. Like no politician has ever been caught red assed with a rent boy or child porn.
Hetero Down’s Syndrome Couples are allowed to marry. Go figure. [/quote]
Mia culpa, must have been a hurry “precedent based on intelligence.”[/quote]
Sorry, you lost me after “mea culpa”. My point is that it’s not a precedent based on intelligence, because, for example, they haven’t tried to ban straight couples with Down’s from doing the beast with two backs. Yet.[/quote]
Yes, they did, it maybe only for him, but their reasoning is based on the man’s intelligence.