I didn't say you let the judges go on their own. The politicians still set the criteria. You just take the pleb's opinion with a large helping of salt in 'hot button' socio-moral issues just as you do in everything else.

__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.

So instead of looking at things from the point of view of a "reasonable man", judges should put themselves in the shoes of a "centre-left man"?

The fact is, some of them do. And some of them lean more towards the right. Ideally there'd be no bias whatesoever, but that's unlikely ever to happen. Politicians and jurisprudence can provide guidelines, but they can't cover every situation. Look at that story about the teacher who fed ten year-old his own... ah... essence. Is that even a crime? Is it sexual assault? Poisoning? Fraud? Is feeding someone cum in order to get your rocks off worse than doing it as a practical joke or out of spite? Is the fact that the victims were totally innocent of what was going on an attenuating or an aggravating factor?

__________________
Standard disclaimer: the disgusting statements contained in this post are the views of the poster, and unless specified do not represent the views of the moderators or the site's owners.

While I would agree with the description "centre-left" as characterising me, I don't agree that this is it.

For example, increasing the amount of cops in the streets work for reducing crime. So does lengthening sentences. Those are "right-wing" policies. They just happen to be scientifically or at least statistically proven.

Basically, I think policies should be "reality-based", which, I would argue, means mostly "centre-left" but that's not the be all and end all.

And, to take the example of your semen feeding professor, I would say that there is indeed a crime being committed - against people's likely moral positioning. It's not "assault" in the legal sense (I think) but it might be seen as a type of fraud/misrepresentation/dereliction of duty.

Basically, since the guy hasn't demonstrated a tendency to violence and outright breach of consent, I think he should be stripped from his job and put under the 'to be watched' category (register for sexual offenders? Somesuch).

__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.

Originally Posted by Gilles de Rais

How do you define "intelligence"? Would you eat a dolphin? a monkey? a whale?

It's a fuzzy realm, but you can look at things like having a distinct name, language, math and so on.

I would not eat dolphins, or most apes, and probably elephants. But that's not a hard line; If I were marooned on a desert island, I'd be much more comfortable eating any of those than a human.

Z:

Quote:

Is it okay to eat a kid as long as you don't fuck it first?

No, because people are not food. It's not common for a species to eat itself, because that limits its viability.

Granted, it's not a majority practice, as far as cultures go, but it's not as though it doesn't exist at all.

__________________
Standard disclaimer: the disgusting statements contained in this post are the views of the poster, and unless specified do not represent the views of the moderators or the site's owners.

A legal bid to free five orcas from captivity at SeaWorld on the grounds that their "enslavement" is in violation of the US constitution is a "strategic error", a conservationist has warned.

The case, brought by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (Peta) against SeaWorld in the US, to be heard this week, has triggered controversy over applying the 13th amendment – which abolished "slavery or involuntary servitude" in America – to non-humans such as killer whales.

In the UK, the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society senior biologist Philippa Brakes said that taking a large-brained mammal, which would naturally range in groups over a huge area, against its will and putting it alone in a situation where it was harming itself because of its misery "amounts to slavery".

But she said most of the public would not necessarily see it that way, and they enjoyed seeing orcas and dolphins in marine zoos without being aware of the "hideous lives they're leading".

In the US, Peta has faced criticism over its bid to pursue the freedom of an animal under the 13th amendment.

While the case would bring publicity to the issue of the rights or interests of "non-human persons", something for which some people have been arguing for a long time, if the case fails and there is then case law history against recognising those rights, that would not be helpful for the cause, Brakes warned.

"I would love to be wrong, and that they find for the orcas in this case, but I doubt very much that's going to happen, and I think it's a strategic error," she said.

She said those concerned for the welfare of mammals, in captivity and in the wild, should use the increasing body of science that showed that they were intelligent creatures capable of suffering in order to argue for their interests to be recognised – not as equal to humans, but still "persons" with rights.

The science showed that cetaceans are big-brained marine mammals which form complex societies and even have different cultures within species in different parts of the world, she said. And it was important to take people along with the movement towards recognising the legal rights of non-humans.

"It's more than court cases, it's really about changing people's attitudes and understanding," she said.

While Peta's court case may not deliver freedom for killer whales, Brakes said: "I do think a tipping point is coming. We have to use the science to argue to that tipping point. All we're trying to do is have the genuine interests of these animals recognised."

Legal bid to free killer whales is 'strategic error', says conservationist | World news | The Guardian

__________________
Standard disclaimer: the disgusting statements contained in this post are the views of the poster, and unless specified do not represent the views of the moderators or the site's owners.

Originally Posted by Gilles de Rais

While I would agree with the description "centre-left" as characterising me, I don't agree that this is it. For example, increasing the amount of cops in the streets work for reducing crime. So does lengthening sentences. Those are "right-wing" policies. They just happen to be scientifically or at least statistically proven. Basically, I think policies should be "reality-based", which, I would argue, means mostly "centre-left" but that's not the be all and end all. And, to take the example of your semen feeding professor, I would say that there is indeed a crime being committed - against people's likely moral positioning. It's not "assault" in the legal sense (I think) but it might be seen as a type of fraud/misrepresentation/dereliction of duty. Basically, since the guy hasn't demonstrated a tendency to violence and outright breach of consent, I think he should be stripped from his job and put under the 'to be watched' category (register for sexual offenders? Somesuch).

Sure, but that's your opinion. There's no scientific principle that saying "a guy who tricks kids into swallowing his jizz should be given six months suspended" or whatever.

__________________
Standard disclaimer: the disgusting statements contained in this post are the views of the poster, and unless specified do not represent the views of the moderators or the site's owners.

You're of course right but please find below the reasoning, in excruciating details.

First premise: The point of societal organisation is to be better off together than alone [sciences bit: Humans are social animals].

Second premise: Thus, the point of prison is to deter, punish and reform. Overall, it is to make society safer and better than otherwise.

Third premise: This teacher showed a total disrespect for standard sexual morality and deceived his pupils. However he is of a certain age and used no violence.

The sciences bit is that we know that serial killers/rapists are usually of a younger age [late 20s-early 30s is the standard] and they usually have been through an escalation process, with more and more violence used, against animals first and then humans. None of these traits seem present here. Thus, the guy seems like a relatively low risk, from a societal pov.

Conclusion: Therefore, it seems fairly logical to conclude that the guy shouldn't be in contact with children in a capacity of authority and trust and classified as "to be watched", in case he radicalises but to take him out right now on the basis of a potential to commit serious crimes is not reasonable and go against the logic of Justice. A modest dollop of punishment, above and beyond losing his job, can be added, according to taste/public opinion.

Reductio ad absurdum, if we start taking out people preemptively, there is a long long list of other people probably more prone to crime and who should rank higher in priority.

__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.