Comments

105
Oh. Mygod.

You think you're Tony Stark.
You think you're Tony Stark.
You think you "destroyed" Venomlash. Venomlash!

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
::pause for breath::
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

You're priceless. Don't ever change.
106
I want to know these kids' races. I absolutely want to know. How do we find out?
107
@103: You advocate for legalizing the production of child pornography by said child, but not its possession by other parties. If you had actually read my post, you would understand that this could allow people MAKING child pornography to avoid the more serious charge of actually making the stuff and claim that it simply came into their possession after it was legally made, thus being punished only for the lesser charge of possession.
I am not in favor of prosecuting kids for sending pictures of their junk to their boyfriends or girlfriends, but it is important that the production of such images remain technically illegal for the reasons documented above. This is where prosecutorial discretion comes into play.

With regard to the Australian issue, you're barking up the wrong tree. One, your claim that minimum-wage proponents "always" refer to Australia as an example is untrue by a simple counterexample (don't say things like "never" or "always" or "every one of" or "none of" if you can avoid it), and two, it is a prime example of the fallacy known as tu quoque. Three, the bill is intended to criminalize revenge porn, not decriminalize the production of underage nude pictures by their subjects. Four, it is a PROPOSED LAW, NOT AN ENACTED LAW.

Moving on to our little discussion of grammar, mechanics, and usage:
The term you mean to use is "typo", a contraction of "typographical error", which is not correctly rendered as "type-o". The (accidental) use of "may" rather than "made" certainly counts as an error in usage. The word "sir" is in fact a noun, not a pronoun.
I never accused you of accusing anyone of calling anyone a "Paultard" or "Teabagger". I stated that you had claimed that Bonefish had claimed that you had falsely accused him of calling someone a "Paultard" or a "Teabagger". Reading comprehension is important, especially in the case of such nested terms!

Finally, if you feel the need to talk about how you're "clearly dominating this debate", you're probably not doing so well. I rarely‡ make such claims, based on the reasoning that if I'm making a better showing than my opponent, there is no need to say so; that judgment is left to the reader. If my opponent is a thinking being, he will either be convinced or unconvinced depending entirely on the quality of my argument and depending not at all on any claim of victory. If my opponent is ignorant and opinionated, he will refuse to be convinced of anything even if Elijah of Tishbe should descend with a divine writ of such, and so there is no use either in telling him that I have won the argument. To the best of my estimation, you are compensating for something.

I shall leave you with this:
You are fond of accusing others of argumentum ad hominem and the use of strawmen. Your reading comprehension is not terribly good; you have a tendency to skim a post and immediately respond to what you sort of think it is saying rather than what it is actually saying (videlicet the above unpleasantness over who said what about "Teabaggers" and "Paultards"). Such woeful misinterpretation of others' writings is tantamount to deliberately making a strawman argument.

‡The last time I did so on SLOG was probably when I kept showing fairly.unbalanced the math behind the correlation to gun ownership rate and suicide rate by American state and a graph to make things a little clearer, and he kept denying the evidence right in front of his face and insisting that I couldn't address the issues of Japan or England despite the fact that I had done so about thirty posts previously.
108
@107

Let me try to use smaller words this time so it's easier to understand:
A teenager sends their boyfriend or girlfriend a nude photo of themselves. As it stands now, they are both committing a crime. I think they should not be committing a crime and that child porn laws should apply to adults, not children.
If an adult has child porn, no matter how they obtained it, would be a crime. If a child made an illegal image that an adult has, it doesn't matter. Adult possession of child porn, no matter how it came about, would have the same penalty. I'm only talking about treating minors differently, which we already do with juvenile courts.

In other words, child porn, possession and manufacture, should be treated as a juvenile offense by a juvenile and only be a felony if an adult commits the crime, the where and how they got the child porn being irrelevant.

As for people claiming it was made legally...oh yes, so they will manage to convince a court that a child broke into their home, took their camera, and took nude photos of themselves in said perverts home just to send to a friend but said pervert didn't delete it from their camera.
And yes, police can trace a photo to an individual digital camera: http://www.scientificamerican.com/articl…
And the penalty for possession of child pornography is strong enough that even in the unlikely event that your absurd scenario did work as a defense, said pervert would still go to jail: http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/do…

Even for someone with reading comprehension of your level should be able to understand that.
Second, sir is indeed a pronoun. Source: http://new.oberlin.edu/dotAsset/2012173.…

And yes, I'm dominating, as my positions usually do. It is just that in the parallel universe of Seattle, any logical idea (read, not-liberal) is laughed at.

Oh, and when on this thread did I accuse anyone of using an argumentum ad hominem? And why is it that I'm the only one providing external links to third party sites to back up my claims? Oh yes: because my claims are based on reality, while the claims of others are based on liberal daydreams. I can find links to back up reality, but no one can find a link to back up their daydreams.

I will leave you with this:
When I was perhaps ten I mentioned to some other children that some scientists think wormholes may exist in space. They laughed, proclaiming there are no worms in space. I tried to explain that wormhole was simply the name scientists give to the phenomenon of a tear in the fabric of space and time, but they wouldn't hear it. I was considered the "dumb kid" because I lost the popular vote. Of course, I was right. It was simply impossible to argue with children who didn't know any better.
We libertarians often have the same problems: our opponents are like children and simply not as intelligent as we are. Hence, any argument ends in a true win for us, but a consensus loss do to the fact that we are outnumbered by those with less intelligence.

Oh, and before you cry foul over my stating that libertarians are smarter: http://www.triplenine.org/poll/press.htm
109
@108: YES, YES, YES, WE AGREE THAT POSSESSION OF CHILD PORNOGRAPHY SHOULD BE A CRIME. WE HAVE BEATEN THIS TO DEATH AND BACK TO LIFE AGAIN. YOU CAN STOP REFLEXIVELY POSTING IT OVER AND OVER AGAIN.
If you read what I have written exactly three million times now (the "exactly" is a joke), the situation I pose is one in which a sexual predator convinces a minor to produce pornographic images. If the production of such images is legal if it is done by their subject, an accused adult could claim that while they knew the minor, they had nothing to do with the actual production of the images.
Your claim that the punishment for simple possession is a harsh enough deterrent falls flat; if that is the case, why do we even punish the production of such materials, rather than simply punishing the possession?

As for the discussion of pronouns, you have the sort of figurative egg on your face that must have come from an elephant bird. The source you produced to support your claim that "sir" is a pronoun simply uses "sir" as a guide to the pronunciation of certain gender-neutral pronouns! It says nothing about the word "sir" itself, and "sir" is actually a noun! Please explain why, if you know what you are talking about and are capable of reading, parsing, and understanding written material, why you would write something so colossally foolish!

My opinion of your reading comprehension falls further as I read more of your latest post. I did not claim that you accused anyone in this thread of argumentum ad hominem, but rather that you are known for making such accusations and have a history of doing so. Do you dispute this?

Posting links to third-party sources earns you no credit unless those sources actually demonstrate, support, or otherwise advance your arguments. So far in this thread you have posted:
-an article about a proposed law in Australia that doesn't give any details about the law, much less any that would put it in line with your recommendations on the issue
-a picture of Buzz and Woody with a snide caption and a watermark
-a New Republic article about how POSTING IN ALL CAPS DENOTES YELLING
-a Scientific American article about a new way to potentially in the future trace pictures back to the digital cameras that took them
-a write-up of legislative action intended to provide stricter penalties for child pornography offenses
-a guide to gender-neutral pronouns which you recklessly misinterpreted as providing support to your erroneous claim
Posting a link doesn't make your argument right in and of itself.

You claim that you are smarter than the rest of us, correct? I do not claim to know the level of your intelligence, but I am curious to learn the extent of your education, which is more easily measured. (I personally hold a bachelors degree with two majors in the hard sciences from one of the finest universities in the world, if you are similarly curious. You do not spend years of your life studying the sciences without learning how to think critically, trust me.)
At this point, however, I am hesitant to believe that you are all that intelligent; you have claimed repeatedly that government regulation of industry inherently benefits big business at the expense of the working man, that minimum-wage laws are inherently racist, and that it benefits all to allow families to opt out of fire-department coverage. Those positions are not ones supported by fact! Either you are unintelligent, you are misinformed, or you are simply closed-minded, or possibly some combination of the three.

Here is a prime example of your lack of intellectual competence:
You claim that libertarians are smarter than liberals based on the results of a poll. A society of approximately 1200 highly-intelligent people, self-selected, had its American membership of approximately 350 polled on certain issues. 57 responses were gathered, and the responses tended to align with libertarian ideology.
Right off the bat, this is not a proper sampling of, well, ANYTHING. It's not a proper sample of the population as a whole because it excludes people of below-exceptional intelligence. It's not a proper sample of highly-intelligent persons either because its membership is entirely self-selected; it is doubtless that there are other persons in the world who meet the basic criteria for membership but have no interest in applying. Nor is it a remotely proper sampling of libertarians, for reasons similar to the above. Additionally, n=57 is a horrendously small sample size for purposes of drawing conclusions about the population as a whole.
So allow me to lay things out in a way you might understand. Let us suppose that this group of 57 responses is indeed indicative of the attitudes of the super-intelligent, despite the above reasons why this is unlikely to be the case. Even assuming such, nothing is said of the politics of the less-intelligent! Libertarians could potentially be composed of a few highly-intelligent persons and a great many unintelligent persons, giving them an astonishingly-low average intelligence.

I eagerly await your explanation as to why, if you are so smart, you believe that "sir" is a pronoun based on this file. An intelligent and literate being should be able to truly make sense of the written word rather than simply snatch a few characters here and there for purposes of inflating his own ego.
110
@Collectivism_sucks, you are an idiot. I've met your type in real time even have politely friendly relationships with a few of them but the bitterness and delusional sophomoric thought process isolates them. Its just sad.

I've no doubt you have a have a few classes beyond High School under your belt but that does not change the fact that you've had your ass handed to you in this thread and don't realize it. That is just sad.

You're probably not a bad guy to have a beer with and shoot some pool, so long as no serious topic comes up. But your mind is untrained to swim in the waters your trying to swim in. In short you are the definition of the old adage "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing".
111
@107 - Actually, I don't think it would ever be relevant in a real case. Lets say you have an adult who possesses child pornography. If the law penalizes people (of any age) who produce child pornography more harshly than those who simply posess it, the prosecutors will have to prove that the adult in question was somehow involved in the production. Likewise, if production was only illegal for people over 18, if prosecutors found an adult in possession of child pornography, they would be able to charge them with production only if they could prove that the adult was somehow involved in the production. Making it legal for minors to take sexually explicit photos of themselves would not change anything. In either instance the posessor would be free to argue they were merely a recipient and the prosecutors would have to prove otherwise if they wanted to convict for production as well as possession.

    Please wait...

    and remember to be decent to everyone
    all of the time.

    Comments are closed.

    Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


    Add a comment
    Preview

    By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.