How much is too much...Follow

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-quinn-internet-12-aug12,0,671658.story



Who defines "social networking". Does every "social networking" site now have to carry a logo or a stamp warding off sex offenders?



How long before casual agreements on an internet forum or news article comments board becomes "grooming"?



So absent fathers can now be absent with the blessings of the law so long as they shoot the kid an occasional email? How long before custodial parents start denying face to face visits because the law permits the use of email or skype instead?


This all seems a bit overboard to me (like most legislation these days). 95/95 and all that.

Murder, the victim clearly won't have long term life affecting problems. Kidnapping normally ends in death, same result.

The issue with sex crimes is the long term damage caused to the victim. kindergartners with herpes - thats something that for the rest of the childs life he/she will suffer with.

There are some extreme laws against sex offenders and the term sex offender is a blanket term - I mean, a teen who gets busted for sending naughty photos of themselves could be charged as a sex offender - society probably won't differentiate between them and old uncle Joe who gave his toddler niece herpes.

I mention Old Uncle Joe because typically, in the case of child molestation, it is someone who knows the family (generally an older Caucasian male.)- I can pull the info out of my Bartol & bartol Criminal Behavior book when Im feeling more motivated.

If you murder someone, the punishment allowable by the laws seems to carry a longer sentence than if you were to go on a raping spree at the local preschool. I suspect a dead preschooler won't need therapy or medical treatment much the same way a molested or raped preschooler would...

Shameful.

Is there a ************ joke in there? I can't tell.

Have you read the bill? I am sure the information is in there.

Hahahahhahahahaha. Please. The idea that these sorts of "feel good" laws are written with any sort of specificity is ludicrous. I haven't read the bill, but I'll wager $1000 blind that it's some vague mishmash of idiocy along the lines of "any website that allows posting of pictures, or one to maintain a profile or operates a means to contact other people"

It'll be intentionally vague, by design to allow the broadest enforcement possible in cases where maybe there isn't enough evidence to charge anything meaningful, but there was enough probably cause to investigate to the point of establishing someone had a tweeter profile.

Afterthought: Aren't job finder sites and those such as linkedin.com social networking sites? Don't these people have a hard enough time finding a job as is?

Rape is not worse than murder. Rape damages a person and leaves them with problems, in a way that cancer might, or aids: never goes away, might go into remission, but always there. It sucks, it's awful, but murder means that you die and you never even have the chance, ever, again, to experience any pleasurable aspect of life. You can't focus on the pain that oblivion absolves you without also recognizing the pleasure that it steals. If it didn't steal any pleasure, we could just kill rape victims and be doing them mercy.

I'm aware of the old epicurean deal about how death ain't all that bad, because you can't experience it. While it serves as a good reason not to fear death, it does not serve as a good reason to die.

Of course, this is just for rape, and not groping someone or pissing in public when you're 19 and getting a living death sentence put on you for doing something stupid before you've matured. I fail to see how any sex crime but rape can even come close to being murdered. So, if you'd like, we can have two discussions here, one about rape, and one about larger picture.



That too. I don't understand why you'd even bother releasing someone if you thought that you had to watch them like a hawk.

You know as well as I do that the alternative systems have just as many faults in them. Attempting to combine duty and consequences is hard as hell, both are arbitrary anyway, and this particular arbitrary application of consequence doesn't need to conflict with mitigation from duty if we choose to fanwank about it.

***

Besides, we haven't been talking about the motivation of the action, just the action. If the motivation is the same, we can consider the consequences in the same light, in which case I feel perfectly fine saying that murder is worse than rape.

Edited, Aug 12th 2009 9:48pm by Pensive

See edit

You know the alternative is just not to talk about right and wrong, and then how would I ever get posts

I've bumped into you saying this a lot over time, and it just occurred to me that the best way for you to answer your question is to go out and find someone who has been raped, and then talk to them about it.

That makes it sound a lot simpler than it is, because the victims don't exactly talk about it, but I think it's really the only way you'll get a satisfactory answer to your question. We can't convince you by telling you what rape does. You should go out and see the consequences firsthand, and then you can take a look at your moral system where rape isn't as bad as kidnapping and decide if you're really okay with it.

So were a bunch of women on this forum iirc, but I'm certainly not going to say it for them, though I do invite their opinions.



Without talking to victims of kidnapping also? Man, a biased sample is such a wonderful device for determining moral repugnance, ain't it? Regardless of how any lady (or dude) feels, I could understand wanting to die after being raped, because, you know, sympathy and all that. I can understand a lot of things that I don't agree with: religion, terrorism, private business, etc. I think it's still kinda shortsighted to think, even from the point of view of the victim, that being dead is a better alternative to having a life ahead of you to mend.

And honestly? I'm willing to be proven wrong. Maybe some people don't get over it. If they really were better off dead, why not pull a Kevorkian? Would that not be the right thing to do, just as it is in the case of end of life directives and assisted suicide and stuff?

Oh, in terms of anecdotes, aside from this board, I played ffxi with a lady who was forcibly impregnated when she was in her teens. She was one of the coolest ladies I've ever met, and was certainly making the most out of life, often going so far as to claim that it made her stronger. Does this anecdote actually mean anything at all with regards to the categorical ethical status of rape vs murder? Not really, but I figured I'd share.



No, not between categories, but they will vary within the category itself. Someone who rapes out of lonely desperation is less bad than someone who rapes out of spite and malice. Someone who murders out of anger is less bad than someone who murders from sadism.

Edited, Aug 12th 2009 10:54pm by Pensive

He's not jumping down your throat. Pensive tends to be pretty passionate about his opinions.

This law seems to be in direct conflict with the other reason the internet is used at all: ****.

Now, I'm no psychologist, but if you've ever seen an interview with pretty much any female **** star (Sorry poofs, I don't know if this correlates with the men of ****), she's had some sort of sexual trauma at a young age. She then associates sex with getting what she wants, moves to LA, & ends up doing bukkake flicks.

Laws like these are preventing the makings of the next generation of **** gals & by association, hookers.

Gov. Quinn needs to remember the **** stars & hookers.