[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Yes, they did, it maybe only for him, but their reasoning is based on the man’s intelligence.[/quote]
No - their public justification of it is based on the man’s intelligence.
All of those who are saying “Well he doesn’t know what he’s doing so they have to stop him”, he knows enough to know that he likes it and it’s not hurting him. My step-brother who is 23 years old has downs syndrome and is rated at about 1st-2nd grade level (somewhere between 8-10 year old intelligence). He might not be able to make complicated decisions, but he knows enough to avoid hurt and head towards pleasure.
If he likes it, and isn’t being held under any duress by the other man, I don’t see why it’s a problem IMO. I’m still standing by my callout of thinly veiled homophobia.
[quote]roybot wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Yes, they did, it maybe only for him, but their reasoning is based on the man’s intelligence.[/quote]
No - their public justification of it is based on the man’s intelligence. [/quote]
I don’t get it, that is what I just said.
Gee, maybe a sex drive is a biological trait and therefore a fucking INSTINCT, as in, does not require an intellectual capacity to operate? As in, “mentally handicapped” people still want to fuck?
No, it couldn’t possible be that.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[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]
I’m saying I think this ruling was more directed at “Kieron”, like implicitly threatening him with rape.
Whatever “Alan”'s mental capacity is, I’m sure it does not exceed that of an 18 year old (or whatever the age of consent is in England). Just because he is physically a grown man does not mean he is capable of consenting. That’s why this case was morally and intellectually whatever that judge said.
But I also agree it probably wouldn’t have been an issue or reported by whoever takes care of Alan if it had been a woman and not a man.
[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]
Every time he gets raped they will add to his sentence.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]roybot wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Yes, they did, it maybe only for him, but their reasoning is based on the man’s intelligence.[/quote]
No - their public justification of it is based on the man’s intelligence. [/quote]
I don’t get it, that is what I just said.[/quote]
Not quite. In politics and the media, reasoning and public justification are two different things (notice that I said public justification above) The article slanders this ‘Alan’ guy several times. The underlying message is basically that his rampant sex drive combined with an intelligence level too low to control that drive, makes him a danger to kids. There is no truth in that. Why? Because they would have had enough reason to lock him up way, way before this ever came before a judge if it was true. They justify the legislation by making out that his bestial urges govern his reason.
So then they have license to use their ‘reason’ to control those urges because he lacks the reason to do it himself. He didn’t do enough to get himself locked up, so they plain made shit up to make the legislation credible. Their “reasoning” is probably based on two randy men making out in a public place and somebody took umbrage. Neither of the men did enough to get locked away, which would have solved the problem. So they had to resort to dirty tactics. I’m not arguing semantics here. Read my previous posts on this thread.
[quote]Blaze_108 wrote:
I’m still standing by my callout of thinly veiled homophobia.[/quote]
I agree. Some small-minded fucker saw two adult males french kissing in a park, knew that they were below average intelligence and exploited it. And they both were, because you can bet your bowel that if one of them was of at least average intelligence they’d have accused him of taken advantage of the ‘simpleton’ and locked the ‘abuser’ away long before seeking a “precedent based on intelligence”.
[quote]roybot wrote:
[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]
More than that, the international dissemination of personal info. through business could potentially mean that one government could falsely incriminate any citizen in any country they choose to target and for any crime. Virtual assassination, anyone? Stalin eat your heart out.
[quote]Blaze_108 wrote:
Doing this across the board would improve humanity. However, in this case it sounds more like thinly veiled homophobia. [/quote]
So much this. All of it.
[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]
Amazon isn’t telling this dude he can’t fuck.
[quote]FightinIrish26 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]
Amazon isn’t telling this dude he can’t fuck.[/quote]
And I never said they did, just as I never said Amazon are going to raise a private army and march into our homes and take all our women away.