follow 6,097 comments male Followed by 1 Following 0 Ignored by 5 Ignoring 0 Ignore curious2
Registered Mar 17, 2012
"Grumpy Cat makes two appearances in the name of marriage equality -- because everyone deserves the right to be married and miserable"
curious2's most recent comments:
- On Thu, 30 Jun 2016, 10:58pm PDT
Science Friday: Bangladesh bloggers getting murdered,
"A Hindu temple worker has been killed by three men on a motorcycle, local police have said, the latest of dozens of brutal attacks in Bangladesh.
Police said he was hacked on the neck several times with machetes."
- On Thu, 30 Jun 2016, 12:12pm PDT
If you vote for Hillary someone you Love will be killed by Terrorism,
Is that what you would favor?
Ceteris paribus, I would favor a President who prioritizes American interests first. When the most likely D&R nominees seemed to be Bush v Clinton, it seemed probable that America woud continue throwing itself on the Saudi sword, sacrificing American blood and treasure to serve Saudi interests, including the spread of Sunni Islam. To my surprise, the entire Republican stage got Trumped. I will not pretend to clairvoyance, but I read the commercial media panic narrative as a reverse barometer. Goldwater Girl Hillary Rodham and her TV proxies are trying to recycle LBJ's "daisy" ad, and it seems to work among some of her older supporters who watch too much TV "news", but most of the audience has moved on. Islam has waged jihad against the rest of the world for more than 1,000 years. American policy will be decided by people who have more information than PatNet, and hopefully by someone who puts America first.
- On Thu, 30 Jun 2016, 11:42am PDT
Why statutory rape is bullshit,
The no regrets lady is a non argument.
Actually, I think that should be an essential element of the alleged crime.
For example, in some states, the elements and defenses include what the defendant knew or should have known. (Oh no, another "thought crime"!) If a 17yo high school senior buys a fake ID and uses that to get into a 21+ singles bar, and claims to be a 22yo university senior, then she creates a reasonable belief that she is over 18. In some states, such reasonable belief is a defense to statutory rape. In other states, it is no defense, and the crime is the same regardless of whether the defendant met the alleged victim in a singles bar or in a schoolyard. Probably most people think reasonable belief should be a defense, although some binary programmers might then call it a "thought crime" and say intent is unprovable. In reality, intent is an element of many crimes, and reasonable belief is often a defense.
Likewise, another element should be to ask whether the underage "victim" is in fact a victim. Did she have cause to regret it later? If she caught an STD or got pregnant, then yes, she was harmed by a risk that she was too young to consent to.
In my opinion, the phrase "victimless crime" is an oxymoron. If there was no victim, then there was no crime. "No harm, no foul." Unfortunately, we tend to get legislation designed to increase the revenues of patronage networks that wrote and enacted it. The prison industrial complex wages an endless "war on drugs," which has obviously failed in all its purported goals, but has conferred vast revenue and power on the drug warriors who insist on continuing it. We live in a culture where 51% of the voters can be persuaded to lock up the other 49%, for any reason or for none. The only solution I can see is to amend the Constitution to prohibit the possibility of "victimless crimes." Of course, people could always argue the "butterfly effect" to allege some indirect victim somewhere, which is why I have suggested that nothing should be a felony unless at least three fourths of voters agree, and nothing should be a misdemeanor unless at least two thirds of voters agree. Otherwise, we end up in a minefield of mousetraps.