The Glade 4.0

When you're 19 in any day and age, you tend to think you can explain your way out of any law you break.

_________________
The Dude abides.

Not true.



That's because 19 year olds are stupid and ruled by hormones.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

fixed it for ya

Because the women/girls sending those pictures are non hormonal and balanced ?

_________________
"Life isn't divided into genres. It's a horrifying, romantic, tragic, comical, science-fiction cowboy detective novel. You know, with a bit of pornography if you're lucky."
— Alan Moore

Shh... now you're just giving our secret away ^-^

No, no you didn't. Females are no better in that regard. I realize you think it's just hilarious, but the fact of the matter is that A) it's hardly an original joke, so the amusement value is limited at best and B) far too many women actually think this, and quite a few more think there's a significant amount of truth to it.

Women are stupid and ruled by hormones too, especially at 19, they're just better at shifting blame to men.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

damnit they are onto us.. quickly, someone flash them!

It is commonly accepted that males reach their sexual peak around 20ish, while females don't reach it until 30ish.

Thus a a 19 year old female is less hormonal driven than a 19 year old male.



You know what they say about sterotypes =P

It has a grain of truth to it as men are physical, and women are emotional. So when the hormone calls, men are more likely to engage in sexual activity, than a woman who needs at least some connection or reason to engaged in sexual activity. (keep in mind revenge on someone else is included in the reason)

Men are easier, they do it cause it feels good and the chick is hot.

Edit. Slight clairifcation, this is not for ALL guys or girls, just the majority trend.

I don't know that it's "commonly accepted" at all, nor does "sexual peak" meant he same thing as "hormone driven."



Irrelevant.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Does the appeals process apply to being labeled as sexually dangerous? If you can appeal up the chain then each case should be able to be handled on its own merits. A law stating that some widgits can be green is not a law saying all widgets must be green.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

wow you're grouchy today DE...

I only read the last link, since you said it was the best, but aside from potentially mis-remembering the percentage, or the method used to calculate the recidivism rate presented was based on research other than presented in that last link, nothing in that study implies my statement or understanding is a "myth".

Ummm, didn't we have a few threads wherein the minor males receiving "sextings" from their minor girlfriends got smacked up with the Life Sentence?

_________________

Under-aged images are incredibly prevalent, guys. They can be found all over the Internet in fact (Google "stickam nudes"). People rarely get in trouble for this stuff. It's like one in a million. People don't get "sent to prison" if they don't immediately delete . Dying in a fatal car crash is more likely than getting arrested for CP.

Ladas,

I provided facts and research including from the United STates Department of Justice. You just repeat what you said without ANY facts. You are hereby proved wrong.

End of discussion.

_________________
Memento Vivere

I have local knowledge.
That sandbar was not there yesterday!

I recall there being some sort of issue about it, but I don't think anyone got "smacked with a life sentence" nor can we conclude that if it happened in one case it will happen in all.

In any case, this talk of "if they don't delete it immediately they get sent to prison" and "smacked with a life sentence" talk rather ignores the entire "trial" process. It isn't like they get summarily tossed in prison.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

No, I'm not grouchy.

I do find it amazing though, how many females accuse males of being "grouchy" when they are being disagreed with. It must be that hormonal stupidity they supposedly don't have.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Diamondeye is just being himself... that's not "grouchy". I highly doubt he is in some special mood that he needs to inflict on others.

I wouldn't have called you grouchy if you actually answered my post with something more thought provoking than "irrelevant". Normally I'm quite willing to answer and discuss things. I also have no problems with being disagreed with, what I have problems with is people who refuse to engage in an conversation or give a counter argument, but sooth their own ego when called upon their behavior by demeaning the other side...

I'm sorry, proved wrong in what way?

That recidivism among sexual offenders is high? That it varies depending on the type of sexual offense? The DoJ study supports both of those statements. The 78%? As I said, I am either misremembering the percentage, or remembering it correctly, but the method in which recidivism was calculated differs from what was presented in the DoJ study (btw, the authors of that DoJ study missed at least one different, but valid, calculation tool for recidivism), which was also covered as a primary concern with past research. In particular, the lecture/documentation for the CLE dealt specifically with child molesters and recidivism as a comparison to overall sexual offender recidivism rates... which your DoJ study noted was particularly difficult to document due to under reporting.

So, aside from the specific value I gave, in what way was my statement a "myth" and I was "proven wrong" when your DoJ study supports what I said?

I'm not going to answer a tangent that has nothing to do with the topic at hand. No one's soothing their ego here. The second portion of your post had nothing to do with what was being discussed. Every time you decide to go rambling you're not necessarily going to get a full response.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

The specifics of the charge are irrelevant, and the example is anecdotal and used only to serve as a discussion point, that being: if this is the precedent, where does it end?

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

The specifics of the charge are quite relevant, since you are using the specifics to highlight an absurdity that could occur. Since Federal law does not prosecute that kind of case and therefore the absurdity is not going to occur, it is not useful as a discussion point.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Yes, precedent is never used in related cases, only in cases for the exact same charge under the exact same circumstances. Furthermore, states and federal courts don't look at each other, or the USSC court for guidance, only themselves.

You win, though, because I don't care enough to nitpick the details with you. I gave an illustrative example of how this ruling could potentially annihilate freedom. You didn't like the specifics of that illustrative example, so you discounted the entire argument. Enjoy your spurious logic victory.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

No, you gave no such example because the Federal ruling cannot be used by states without State laws allowing that same procedure of indefinitely holding sex offenders. Without a Federal law allowing that, there would have been no way for it to be tested in court in the first place.

In other words, your example works if and only if there is a slippery slope wherein a state adopts a similar law, and then chooses to apply it in the manner specified.

As for "annihiliating freedom", well.. it's supposed to. When punishing criminals, taking away their freedom is a major part of it. Of course, I'm being excessively literal there because it's clear that your point is that this law goes too far in taking away freedom relative to the crime committed, and I agree with that.

It's a stupid ruling, but really, you could have come up with a much more pertinent example, or at least explained fully the chain of events you had in mind.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

It's the hip thing to hate on sex offenders. Hell, we already track them forever, and limit their movement, detaining them indefinitely is just the logical next step. After that, they'll create camps, and when the population gets too large, they'll move them all to newly-fenced in Nevada where they will develop their own pedosociety. Parents will threaten their kids with tossing them over the fence if they don't eat their green beans.

This is the logical progression, and cannot be stopped.