quote:

---

Originally posted by Bugger:
3) on the other hand, we seem to live in a country where the Supreme effing Court is expected to take longer than five minutes to figure out whether denying same-sex couples the same federal benefits given to heterosexual ones is in any way legal. This is how the conversation should go:
"Hey guys, is it constitutional to deny people something for no secular reason? Or is it constitutional to deny people equal rights in any way from the federal government?"
"Well, the first and fourteenth amendments pretty clearly say no."
"Alright cool, case decided. Let's take lunch."

Edit: as usual, the onion hit it best with "Supreme Court Slated to Convene to Decide Whether Human Beings Deserve Equal Rights".

---

Please understand that other civil rights issues have historically had a very extensive index of data that would support or refute the claim that a specific group of individuals were being unfairly harmed by a law or practice. As much as I hate to admit it, Justice Kennedy is correct in saying that same-sex marriage is a newer concept than cell-phones, and asking the court to find relevant constitutional guidance on a issue (marriage) that doesn't explicitly exist in our constitution is very hard to justify, especially when the 9th amendment was specifically created for situations such as these.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Volcanon:
If they don't kick out the anti-prop 8 on standing, the fundamental rights thing might fly, really.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by speechjew:the boys' lives are ruined. But they did it to themselves. We all have a choice. To quote The Last Crusade, "he chose poorly."

But I also believe the girl is not 100% innocent in this. You get pass-out drunk (and possibly high) at a party with jocky football players, you're not taking responsibility for yourself.

She did not deserve it. She did not encourage it. She is the victim. But if you put yourself into the position to not have the capacity to say yes or no, as she did, you're not 100% innocent either. Like 99.9% innocent, but not 100%.

---

I appreciate your qualifying language, and I appreciate that we don't disagree a whole lot on the issue, but I'm not at all comfortable assigning any portion of the responsibility for her rape on the victim. For underage drinking, absolutely. For getting sloshed, definitely. But not for the rape. That's entirely on the perpetrators.

It's like the prevention campaigns we sometimes see, where women are warned not to walk through alleys and to stick together. It's got its heart in the right place, and it's useful to a certain extent. But it also places the burden of prevention on the victims. Instead, it seems to me we ought to have "Don't rape people"-type campaigns (I know that Vancouver's Don't be that guy campaign has met with a great deal of success, and I'm aware of similar efforts in the UK).

__________________
"I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each. I do not think they will sing to me." -T.S. Eliot

RIP Ari

quote:

---

Originally posted by Goaswerfraiejen:

I appreciate your qualifying language, and I appreciate that we don't disagree a whole lot on the issue, but I'm not at all comfortable assigning any portion of the responsibility for her rape on the victim. For underage drinking, absolutely. For getting sloshed, definitely. But not for the rape. That's entirely on the perpetrators.

It's like the prevention campaigns we sometimes see, where women are warned not to walk through alleys and to stick together. It's got its heart in the right place, and it's useful to a certain extent. But it also places the burden of prevention on the victims. Instead, it seems to me we ought to have "Don't rape people"-type campaigns (I know that Vancouver's Don't be that guy campaign has met with a great deal of success, and I'm aware of similar efforts in the UK).

---

Thanks for understanding my point. You don't have to agree, that's why they're opinions. But she voluntarily put herself in a bad situation. Hence the onus being partially (albeit a tiny, tiny %) on her.

quote:

---

Originally posted by speechjew:
Thanks for understanding my point. You don't have to agree, that's why they're opinions. But she voluntarily put herself in a bad situation. Hence the onus being partially (albeit a tiny, tiny %) on her.

It's sad that we have to have "don't rape" campaigns. But it happens. It's a part of our world. But false accusations of rape also happen. The FBI says 2%-8% of reported rapes are false. The woman in the duke lacrosse case ruined the lives of the kids she accused.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by speechjew:
Thanks for understanding my point. You don't have to agree, that's why they're opinions. But she voluntarily put herself in a bad situation. Hence the onus being partially (albeit a tiny, tiny %) on her.

It's sad that we have to have "don't rape" campaigns. But it happens. It's a part of our world. But false accusations of rape also happen. The FBI says 2%-8% of reported rapes are false. The woman in the duke lacrosse case ruined the lives of the kids she accused.

---

I knew of the Duke thing before, but, man, that incident is the best advertisement for sex toys ever. Much, much cheaper, too. Lady was a prostitute and wasn't even using condoms, too.

[Wikipedia has a very detailed article on it]

She's also on trial for murder now.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zeckk:
Well said. Rape is one of the greyest crimes around, since there's so much ambiguity surrounding consent, context, and legal criteria.

---

It may sometimes be a "grey" crime. But lots of times it is very black and white. These include if the victim is a minor, especially under 16. Or if the victim is incapacitated (including being under the influence of alcohol or drugs) to the point where informed consent is impossible. Or if force (implied or explicit, physical or verbal) is used.

quote:

---

Originally posted by hammr7:
It may sometimes be a "grey" crime. But lots of times it is very black and white. These include if the victim is a minor, especially under 16. Or if the victim is incapacitated (including being under the influence of alcohol or drugs) to the point where informed consent is impossible. Or if force (implied or explicit, physical or verbal) is used.

Claiming that the victim "asked for it" or was somehow responsible because of impaired capability or by being in the wrong place at the wrong time never works legally. But it is a very common excuse used by those who would take advantage whenever and wherever they can.

---

To take the steubenville case as as example - The rapists were also minors. Do you run around with a breathalyzer at parties and ask women if they could verify that they aren't drunk before they decide to sleep with you? Because "informed consent" is why defense attorneys make a LOT of money. Determining consent has everything to do with context, man. Please don't ever generalize what happens in "lots" of rape cases. That's half the problem - society is very quick to judge the accused or the accuser as being 100% guilty or innocent, when the reality is hardly ever so simple.

Depending on your state, legal informed consent is impossible from a partner younger than 13 (at youngest) to 15. In addition, if your partner is more than 2 years younger than you, and less than 17, then sexual contact might, by legal definition, be rape. And just because 90% (or 95% or even 99%) of the time you get away with doesn't mean it is okay or legal.

Where I grew up, a guy in my high school went to prison because he turned 18 and his girlfriend was 15 (2 months shy of 16). They were sexually active. Her parents, who didn't approve, found out and prosecuted. That she was probably more mature than him didn't matter. We all knew the rules (15 will get you 20!) but he decided the rules didn't apply to him. It ruined his life.

However, I'd turn that around for those falsely accused of sexual violence. The people who "voluntarily" put themselves out there for trouble are those falsely accused. People falsely accused of sexual violence certainly should have taken better care not to be in compromising positions. That is a generalization, but it's true. It's reality that these types of accusations almost always occur under less than savory circumstances.

Punishments against sexual offenses must be severe due to the nature of the crimes. Clear and consistent punishment is more important than ads.

quote:

---

Originally posted by hammr7:
If you are a teenage male, are sexually active, and are hanging around younger girls, you are asking for trouble. Only a slight chance of trouble if the girl is your girlfriend (you may well be committing a crime, but the chances are slim you will get called on it). A much greater chance of trouble if it is simply a hookup at a party with underage drinking.

Depending on your state, legal informed consent is impossible from a partner younger than 13 (at youngest) to 15. In addition, if your partner is more than 2 years younger than you, and less than 17, then sexual contact might, by legal definition, be rape. And just because 90% (or 95% or even 99%) of the time you get away with doesn't mean it is okay or legal.

Where I grew up, a guy in my high school went to prison because he turned 18 and his girlfriend was 15 (2 months shy of 16). They were sexually active. Her parents, who didn't approve, found out and prosecuted. That she was probably more mature than him didn't matter. We all knew the rules (15 will get you 20!) but he decided the rules didn't apply to him. It ruined his life.

The law is what it is. You have the right to do whatever you want, but only if you are willing to accept the potential consequences and responsibilities. If a few minutes of perverse pleasure with a passed out partner is worth ruining your life, at least you made the decision. It might be the last important decision you make for a long while.

---

quote:

---

Reagen was hands down best president country ever had and Clinton ranks up there as maybe 2nd

---

I prefer to waste as little time as possible talking about that man, so ill just refer to a tweet on his birthday that covers it far better than I could:

"Happy birthday president Reagan. My heart and best intentions tell me you were a good president, but the facts and evidence do not."

quote:

---

Originally posted by hammr7:
Where I grew up, a guy in my high school went to prison because he turned 18 and his girlfriend was 15 (2 months shy of 16). They were sexually active. Her parents, who didn't approve, found out and prosecuted. That she was probably more mature than him didn't matter. We all knew the rules (15 will get you 20!) but he decided the rules didn't apply to him. It ruined his life.

---

This is where the "grey" area really comes into play. So everything was cool prior to this? The guy probably will never live down or be able to move on from a technicality that only came into play for 60 or so days?

Seems like a load of horsepoop to me.

I too know of a similar situation that happened in my area, but the charges were eventually dropped. The parents were separated, the Father finding out his little angel was sexually active went berserk. Tried to file charges...but the mother, who was the primary guardian of the girl knew about her daughter being sexually active. The guy in this case was very lucky, as like you pointed out, could have ruined his life. The mother and father I guess worked it out and the charges were dropped.

As sad as it may seem, Dave Chappelle said it best.."How old is 15, really?"

I know it doesn't always apply, but cases like these aren't uncommon...and when two young people who are dating and are sexually active(and in the same highschool) you really should deal with this with your child, as a parent, if you don't like the idea of your child being sexually active. Seems like a horrible way to ruin someones life when both parties are so young. Yea, it's the law....but I wish common sense and better parenting would come into play.

That said, I agree with Goas on everything else about being "that guy". There shouldn't really be an excuse if you are deliberately taking advantage of someone against their will or without their knowing bc of a bodily state induced by toxins.

quote:

---

Originally posted by daner:
This is where the "grey" area really comes into play. So everything was cool prior to this? The guy probably will never live down or be able to move on from a technicality that only came into play for 60 or so days?

Seems like a load of horsepoop to me.

I too know of a similar situation that happened in my area, but the charges were eventually dropped. The parents were separated, the Father finding out his little angel was sexually active went berserk. Tried to file charges...but the mother, who was the primary guardian of the girl knew about her daughter being sexually active. The guy in this case was very lucky, as like you pointed out, could have ruined his life. The mother and father I guess worked it out and the charges were dropped.

As sad as it may seem, Dave Chappelle said it best.."How old is 15, really?"

I know it doesn't always apply, but cases like these aren't uncommon...and when two young people who are dating and are sexually active(and in the same highschool) you really should deal with this with your child, as a parent, if you don't like the idea of your child being sexually active. Seems like a horrible way to ruin someones life when both parties are so young. Yea, it's the law....but I wish common sense and better parenting would come into play.

That said, I agree with Goas on everything else about being "that guy". There shouldn't really be an excuse if you are deliberately taking advantage of someone against their will or without their knowing bc of a bodily state induced by toxins.

EDIT: Correct me if I'm wrong..but wasn't there a similar case like this a few years ago with a Florida teen who was eventually pardoned?

---

I've been accused of "forcing myself on a girl" when all I did was touch the side of her face and tried to kiss her. We were good friends who dated briefly about a year ago, and her actions leading up to that were very flirty with me, whether she intended to be that way or not. We were at a movie after having not hung out in several months, she lifted up the little arm rest thing between us, put her head on my shoulder and propped her feet up across my legs. Then when I drove her home I tried to kiss her.

Show of hands? Who else would have interpreted her actions as flirting? I may have lost her as a friend because I "tried to force her to kiss me."

quote:

---

Originally posted by speechjew:
I've been accused of "forcing myself on a girl" when all I did was touch the side of her face and tried to kiss her. We were good friends who dated briefly about a year ago, and her actions leading up to that were very flirty with me, whether she intended to be that way or not. We were at a movie after having not hung out in several months, she lifted up the little arm rest thing between us, put her head on my shoulder and propped her feet up across my legs. Then when I drove her home I tried to kiss her.

Show of hands? Who else would have interpreted her actions as flirting? I may have lost her as a friend because I "tried to force her to kiss me."

Is that fair? Nope. Is that the society we live in? Yup.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zeckk:
Elaborate. Specifically, who accused you, and in what context? Were authorities involved? If they weren't, then what's the point of your story?

---

The girl I was out with accused me. We are both in our 20's, consenting adults. I thought she was flirting with me, so I tried to kiss her. That was it. She broke off the friendship after that. No authorities involved. Just a misunderstanding.

My point is that in some way, my actions could be viewed as sexual assault. I'm somehow wrong for interpreting her flirting a certain way and trying to kiss her?

__________________
"I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each. I do not think they will sing to me." -T.S. Eliot

RIP Ari

quote:

---

Originally posted by Goaswerfraiejen:
Not sure how to couch my reaction, except in terms of horror: thanks to the wonders of 3D printing, everyone (who can afford a printer) can now own unlicensed firearms.

---

Everyone with money can already own an unlicensed firearm, even before 3-D printing.

quote:

---

Originally posted by choco man:
Everyone with money can already own an unlicensed firearm, even before 3-D printing.

Are you more concerned with it being plastic instead of metal (ie, tougher to screen out at detectors)? If it makes you feel more at ease, the bullets are still metallic.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by choco man:
Everyone with money can already own an unlicensed firearm, even before 3-D printing.

Are you more concerned with it being plastic instead of metal (ie, tougher to screen out at detectors)? If it makes you feel more at ease, the bullets are still metallic.

---

Of course I'm aware that you can get an unlicensed firearm for under $8k. And my concerns have little to do with metal detectors. Rather, they've got to do with increased availability (the same problem I keep mentioning in the gun control debates, and which seems to be wilfully ignored each time), with ancillary concerns over the possibility of manufacturing more heavy-duty weapons (this is, after all, the infancy of 3D printing) and "free" access at any institution or business that already has a 3D printer (e.g. my university). And, of course, the idiots who think that making gun printing plans readily available is going to increase public safety.

__________________
"I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each. I do not think they will sing to me." -T.S. Eliot

RIP Ari

You mentioned that your university provides access to 3-D printers. They also provide internet access and people can do illegal things with that type of access just as well. To limit some of the liability, the university has some safeguards against unauthorized access, limiting some of the function available, not giving access to the site with file for the 3-D gun, etc. Do they have those in place with 3-D printer usage?

If not they should. I imagine it's not cheap operating one of those.

Just as there are laws on guns, I'm sure there will be laws on 3-D printers. The "political" portion of your post isn't explicit. Do you want printing "weapons" to be illegal? Is that not the case? Whenever something new pops up, there are new laws right around the corner for better and for worse. imo, a gun is a gun. So any current gun law should govern 3-d guns (ie, "printing" guns is the same as "manufacturing" guns).

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kyosukee:
So, PRISM?

---