You be the judge - sexual assault?

Who's to say it wont embolden them to do it again?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Who indeed? I'm only asking about this time. Without a perceived threat, is there an assault?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

They (the airline) would know about it, of course. They could get him off the airplane quickly once he landed so no one saw him.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well, no, you've been saying that THINKING about doing something could be a crime. It cannot be. There needs to be action. THAT is cut and dried.

Once that action is taken, then you start getting into circumstance and intent. Did he intend to go into the bar and kill the guy? Then it's premeditated murder. Did he go into the bar, get into a fight and kill him as a result of the fight, not out of an intent to kill him? Then it's manslaughter. Did he intentionally kill a guy because the guy had a gun and was holding the bartender hostage? Then he would likely not be charged with anything.

But no matter how hard he THINKS he wants to kill that guy, until he acts, there is no crime.

 

I ASKED you if thinking about something could be a crime and I accepted your answer.

 

OK, sorry. I wasn't sure if you had.

 

OK, a person takes photographs of his friends' children in various states of undress--states which normal people would regard as innocent and acceptable, i.e., not perceived in any way as suggestive, pornographic or erotic. He disseminates these photos online (dark web) amongst a network of pedophiles. Neither the children nor the parents have any knowledge of this, and it never gets back to them at any future stage. Still a crime, right?

 

I think I would have to say no, it shouldn't be. Same as it shouldn't be a crime to distribute drawings of pedophilia or stories about pedophilia. No victim, no crime.

 

Then he can't predict the future. That would presuppose the assaulter himself doesn't know how much of a threat he is; he doesn't know if he is going to get caught. Yet, knowingly chose to commit a crime. The only way it is not a crime is if he actually believes it is not a crime. The laws will make him pay for it, however, unless something like politics, or being in the midst of re-writing laws gets in the way.

I thought of how what I posted above should affect the leg humping scenarios in the OP I made, but when you laugh at the absurdity of such a task, it's the thought that counts.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Do you actually believe our current civilization would benefit from this?

 

No. Peeping is always a crime. Looking isn't.
If something is on public display and you happen to see it, without taking any action, no crime.
If you take some action to be able to see something you're not invited to see, it's peeping and it's a crime.
C'mon! This ain't rocket science!
The crime is in the act, not in the perception.

 

From what I hear about stuff happening with female snowflakes glancing at someone the wrong way is almost same as raping and getting them pregnant

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Not indictable.
Only what you do - to whomever you do it, snowflake or rustflake, date-rape drugs or spiked punch, high-school hijinx or college exuberance, or whatever - what you actually do may be a crime. So, don't.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Clicking is not entirely a distraction, but is hardly necessary.​

Something goes here about what he is trying to maneuver around; and also something about "climate change"↑. It's just that we see so much wrong in his apparent gaslight about fearmongering:

1) General application presumes "fearmongering" true.

2) By this presupposition, we inherently discount aspects of fraud about fearmongering.

(a) We are also similarly discounting incitement to violence.

(1) It is not especially unusual around here that I shrug at one's argument requiring their own immense ignorance; to wit, I have a hard time taking seriously the requisite proposition that Sideshowbob does not know what fraud or incitement to violence are.​

3) Climate change presents a strange context for analogy:

(a) Those who consider "climate change" to be "fearmongering" overwhelmingly tend to disbelieve the general proposition.

(1) Our neighbor is unlikely to declare climate change an invalid proposition or some manner of conspiracy theory, as such, though maybe that is some manner of easy prejudice, because I haven't paid such close attention that I couldn't have missed Sideshowbob denouncing climate change.​

(b) For those who accept a general scientific consensus that human influence on climate, i.e., climate change, is real, the question arises whether Sideshowbob accepts conspiracy theories about evil women and rape reporting are true, or thinks that manner of slander and libel is somehow proper, either for being not untrue or, y'know, whatever.​

One troubling aspect of my own outlook is that there comes a point in life and daily experience when I say, "Brain chemistry is brain chemistry." The acknowledgement makes a weird practical difference, I think, in trying to understand the black man having a bad day and the white cop who shoots him to death for having a bad day, or the woman trying to tell us something very important and the male cop calling her a criminal suspect because she reported a crime. To the one, it's really easy to say the black man doesn't need to die just because he's having a bad day. To the other, the implications of the male cop threatening the woman just because he's suddenly having a bad day are terrifying. The implications of the white cop having a bad day not particularly for danger but, rather, blackness, are staggering and nearly societally existential.

Scaling back to our moment, what if it's not a calculated gaslight? Brain chemistry is brain chemistry; as a practical matter it's harder to enumerate, in any given case, the functional implications about the differences 'twixt blindly reacting and thereby landing in a range, to the one, and cooly reacting by calculating how to land in that range.

Acknowledging masculinism, as such, long enough to observe the phrase, "War of the Sexes", there comes a point at which an apparent failure of the masculinist political argument insists, and that has to do with the point of brain chemsistry being brain chemistry somehow making a given moment inevitable. The seemingly unrelated image above makes a certain point; the three mug shots are of a family that was arrested after police showed up in response to an apparent DV call. Beverly, the mother, is thrashed apparently because she jumped a cop. Scott, on the right, apparently picked up that head wound attacking a female officer who went to the aid of a third, her partner. And look at Gary, in the middle. You know why he's under arrest? All he ever did was strangle that third police officer unconscious for trying to intervene in Beverly's assault of the one. And that's the thing about brain chemistry being brain chemistry: Get these people through the moment alive, and they will at some point cease being an imminent threat. This part seems obvious in its own right, and, certes, there is a question of individual and public safety in any given moment, but that's the thing about the brain chemistry of the cops, a perception that these people are white enough to foresee such a time of reduced or absent threat, which is granted white people choking cops to unconsciousness but not a black man walking away. We should, however, take a moment to honor the professionalism of the police; not only did they not shoot the white family, we also lack any reports that they stopped at Burger King on the way to the station.

In the War of the Sexes, there are many detailed routes, but more generally we might suggest a couple or few pathways, by which we arrive at the prospect, oft-denounced as radical, that men are inherently dangerous. And in this case, as with pretty much any achieving this threshold, we only arrive at such consideration because of what he said. I do a morbid joke about the difference 'twixt sinister and stupid being difficult to discern; in the question of brain chemistry being brain chemistry, the obvious problem, whether we find it on one path or another, such as blindly reacting and landing in a dangerous range compared to calculating one's ingress to that range, is the fact of and relationship to the range in question.

There is also the morbid joke that any excuse will do, and the question of whether raping her↑ such that she does not realize she has been raped↑ because she is unaware of the sexual act↑ is still rape↑ really does make some point of its own just for having come up. In the end, all this argument is after is a man's right to a freebie↑; we might note the repeated comparing of women to currency, and even with declining value↑. Indeed, women are so objectified as a man's sex toy in Sideshowbob's argument that sexual assault, per the topic example, and, explicitly, rape, as established in later discourse, are not something done to a person, but, rather, "'something' done in her presence"↑, according to the principle "that she doesn't know about" it.

The point isn't just to bang on Sideshowbob and rape advocacy, but to make the point that actually paying attention to what men say when certain questions arise is one of the reasons people wonder at and consider inherent danger. How does this actually relate to any one person's state of mind? In the given moment, where is this going? Does one instinctively land in the range, or instinctively calculate to achieve the range?

It's one of those weird things; Infinite Prevention Advice would have a woman guard against all potential rapists, and while feminists object as a human rights question, men apparently blame feminists for the objectionable advice because it makes all men suspect; but while all that is going on, I don't know, maybe men, as such, could just stop presuming privilege and arguing for freebies. It's like, yes, yes, we get you, sir, not all men are rapists; humanity is just really, really better off if more of them to stop acting like they are or want to be.

And even in terms of Sciforums compared to reality, well, sure, there is always someone around to raise that disgusting banner, but it's not like some newbie just stumbling through as that old pretense has it, and it's not like the penguin made them do it↱.

In that sense, we've been here long enough for an old sense of human commonality to erode. I used to make the point about one of our colleagues that he and I could probably drink beer and watch football together, we both believed in America but just disagreed about how to do it, and all that. I've not been so certain about that for a while, but the other interesting thing to consider is the flip-side of the penguin's innocence. Way, way back, there was a guy I argued gay rights with; I had previously lived and worked the fight in a state where he still was. Years later, he would show deeper detail of his supremacism including alt-right rape advocacy. And while it's true people change, he didn't become a misogynist overnight. Nor did our neighbor Bob.

Nor am I anxious to do the line about how men so often presume entitlement we actually need to learn to not be rape advocates. Oh. Well, there we are, then.

And the thing is that if the penguin really did make them do it, we're still talking about their own priorities. Just like landing in the range for reacting blindly. Why land there? Or calculating ingress. Why go there?

Perhaps it feels more visceral today because it's not ineffable; I can actually kind watch its pieces move. To the other, perhaps it feels less visceral other days because it's just not existential for me the way it can be for, well, women.

Here's where I turn to the fourth wall and drop something about how the problem is that it perpetually looks and sounds dangerous. And, well, duh, it is dangerous. But it's not just one person's inherent danger, as such; the nature of the argument extends to cover all heterosexual men. How ... er ... ah ... okay, whatever.

(sigh)

 

The children in identifiable photographs may, as they grow older, and especially if they attract attention from the viewers of those photos, regard themselves as having been victimized. Threatened, at a minimum. Are they wrong?

And certainly they signed no model release - they could sue anyone except the kiddie porn guys for that. So why not the kiddie porn guys?

 

Bells, I find your response immoderate. There is no way that sideshow bob is any kind of troll and I don't find the arguments foetid.

I think it is quite an interesting question to debate what constitutes a crime. It is only natural that some rather unpleasant examples should be brought forward in order to tease out where the line lies between criminal and merely objectionable.

I was just thinking that crime probably encompasses not just acts that cause harm to the victim , but also loss (as in unnoticed theft) and danger (as in speeding). The case of distribution of innocent photographs to those who, due their sexual perversion, might finding them exciting is a tough one where children are involved, for obvious emotional reasons that we all feel strongly. One feels is ought to be crime but I am not sure what the grounds would be.

Perhaps we should instead use a similar example we can all agree is absurd enough to find funny rather than sinister: shoe fetishists on the dark web! Suppose someone has a collection of high-heeled shoes to sell and takes photos of them, being worn by a young woman, in order to facilitate sales on Ebay. Someone gets a copy of these and circulates them to shoe-pervs on the dark web. Is that a crime and if so, on what grounds?

If we can answer that, perhaps we can then see how the case changes if the photos are of people, not shoes, and why.

My suspicion would be that it is something to do with the concept of privacy, by which we mean a particular sort of intangible property that a person is deemed to possess. So infringing privacy causes someone to suffer effectively a form of loss.

 

Invasion of privacy with the potential to cause them harm (how can you know it "never gets back"?)

Reckless endangerment at least.

I agree with exchemist.A very interesting (philosophical) question.

Nobody has mentioned "intent" yet although my "reckless endangerment" seems to take some account of it.

 

Or, you can pick an actual event. Some doctor who grew up in a country where female circumcision is practiced normally, emigrates to a Westernized country. He performs the operation there, gets arrested and doesn't understand why.

I think he should be convicted because, it would be a sign of a regressive state to say the least.

Another crime... I knew I was breaking the law by having

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

in my pocket as I mentioned in the OP, but charging me of a crime wasn't worth it.